Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I note a tendency to group with early numbered Questions late numbered Questions. I must protect those who put down their Questions early and will not necessarily call supplementaries on late numbered Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Nigeria

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest attempts to end the war in Nigeria.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's latest efforts to promote a cease-fire in the war between Nigeria and Biafra.

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further initiatives he proposes with a view to the cessation of the civil war in Nigeria.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking to promote a cease-fire in the Nigerian civil war.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): An opportunity to resume informal discussions between the Nigerian Government and Colonel Ojukwu's representatives arose at the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. The leader of the Nigerian delegation, Chief Awolowo, then repeatedly affirmed that he was ready to see Colonel Ojukwu's representatives without pre-conditions. I urged them to respond to this offer, but most regrettably they failed to do so. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, has already told the House on 21st of January of the steps that he took to try to promote a meeting. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to assist the further efforts which African organisations are now making to secure a peaceful settlement.—[Vol. 776, c. 253–4.]

Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend comment on the general principles of Dr. Azikiwe's peace plan, which seems to offer a reasonable compromise, particularly since all other approaches have so far failed?

Mr. Foley: I have not as yet seen the detailed proposals of Dr. Azikiwe. I am sure that, speaking as an Ibo and a former President of Nigeria, his views will De given the widest possible attention. It is for those to whom the proposals are addressed in the first instance to consider whether they are willing to accept them.

Mr. Barnes: Would my hon. Friend accept that the stability of life in Biafra and the determination to fight for some kind of separate existence are such that no military end to the war is in view at the moment, and would he not agree that as this problem is not capable of a military solution there should be a reappraisal in London of the situation which now applies?

Mr. Foley: I am aware that my hon. Friend has just come back from that part of Africa, and I am delighted to see him and am looking forward to talking to him about his experiences. We have always maintained that both sides must come together and that they must talk. The first prerequisite is a negotiated ceasefire, and then a whole series of things, including relief, a total arms embargo, the security of the Ibos, peace talks and a negotiated settlement, can happen. These are the things which we want to see.

Mr. Henig: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that Colonel Ojukwu has suggested that there should now be a meeting without any preconditions at all simply to arrange the terms of a ceasefire? Does my hon. Friend support this idea?

Mr. Foley: My hon. Friend could not have listened to what I said. An offer was made here in London to Colonel Ojukwu's friends for such discussions without preconditions. The fact that they did not take place must, clearly, be attributable to Colonel Ojukwu.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could elucidate that a little further. I understood that Colonel Ojukwu, earlier in the year at any rate, proposed that there should be negotiations without preconditions provided there was a cease-fire. It is within the recollection of the House that the Prime Minister, in his statement on 30th January, said that he would not negotiate without, I think, recognition of Biafra's nationhood. There

is a discrepancy here which I hope the hon. Gentleman will clear up.

Mr. Foley: I am very happy to clear this up. What the Federal Government are willing to concede is that once the unity of Nigeria is accepted, everything else is negotiable. The question for them is to get a negotiated cease-fire, and all these other things can flow from it. The notion of a cease-fire without conditions brings us back to what this war is all about.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstood me, I think. I am dealing with Colonel Ojukwu's position. Does he say he will negotiate without preconditions provided there is a cease-fire, or does he say he will not negotiate unless his nationhood is first recognised?

Mr. Foley: It is rather difficult to follow all the pronouncements which Colonel Ojukwu has made over the last few months. I do not want to disparage him, for he is in a very difficult situation, but the plain fact is that at this moment there has been no public statement from Colonel Ojukwu of his willingness to negotiate on the basis of one Nigeria.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposals by Dr. Azikiwe yesterday, and the statement made by Chief Awolowo, the No. 2 in the Lagos Government, that he does not regard the existing structure as permanent but capable of readjustment? In view of this, would my hon. Friend consider asking these two experienced leaders in Nigeria to meet together? I think that if they met they would find a common basis on which peace could be negotiated.

Mr. Foley: Yes, I am aware of the comments made by Chief Awolowo in his book, and, indeed, I discussed them with him. He has made it quite clear, which is the understanding we have, that the Federal Government's attitude is that provided one Nigeria is accepted everything is negotiable, the number of States. powers, competencies and so on.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend call them together?

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs what discussions he has had this year with the other Governments principally concerned towards achieving an agreed limitation on the supply of arms to both sides in the Nigerian war; and with what result.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consultations he has had with the French Government about measures to be taken with a view to ending the supply of arms to both sides in the Nigerian civil war; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Padley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take a further initiative to seek a cease-fire in Nigeria and an international embargo on the supply of arms to both sides of the conflict.

Mr. Foley: None, Sir. As my right hon. Friend explained to the House on 16th December—[Vol. 775, c. 846 and c. 236]—the French deny that they are supplying arms, while the Russians have made it clear that they continue to support the Federal Government.

Mr. Lane: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the eyes of a great many people inside and outside this country, and contrary to the impression that one of his colleagues gave during Questions last Monday, this country still has a special responsibility in the matter? Would he not agree that some further initiative by Britain inside or outside the United Nations could not do any harm and might do some good?

Mr. Foley: We are anxious to take and have taken initiatives. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 16th December,

". . we should be ready to co-operate in any enforceable international arms embargo which could be arranged in the context of an agreement to end the fighting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 846.]

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my hon. Friend agree that the question of arms cannot be divorced from the political issues involved in the war, and that the principal political issue involved—namely, one Nigeria or two—is not to be determined by a plebiscite amongst

the minority tribes in the Eastern Region, as has been suggested by Dr. Azikiwe?

Mr. Foley: I would prefer not to comment in detail on Dr. Azikiwe's proposals. I would rather see them given a fair hearing and judge what the reaction is. In order to get an arms embargo the first step is to get a negotiated cease-fire, when an arms embargo can be enforced at the receiving end in Nigeria, together with relief to those concerned and the start of discussions about a future constitution for Nigeria.

Mr. Tilney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recent visitors to Biafra have seen arms from eight different countries being used by the Biafrans? Can he say with what countries he has had contact and consultations with a view to stopping these arms supplies?

Mr. Foley: In the course of events, we have had discussions with the French, and they are aware of our views. The problem of arms in Biafra and, for that matter, Federal Nigeria, is that there are eight or nine sources in Europe and that these are identifiable by those who have been there. This makes it more difficult to get an embargo agreed, because both sides obtain weapons from a multiplicity of sources, even from countries which say that they are applying an embargo.

Mr. James Griffiths: As one of those who have identified arms from eight different European countries, may I remind my hon. Friend that they are being supplied to both sides? They come from a scandalous black market which has been set up in Europe. Will my hon. Friend take action in the Council of Europe to stop these supplies?

Mr. Foley: I agree with the first part of what my right hon. Friend says. As for the second part, there is a Motion before the Council of Europe, tabled by one of my hon. Friends, drawing attention to this scandalous black market.

Middle East

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking to secure a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in line with the Security Council resolution of November, 1967.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress Her Majesty's Government have made in securing a Middle East settlement in accordance with the Resolution of the Security Council in November, 1967.

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the current situation in the Middle East.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position in the Middle East.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Middle East situation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): We expect the representatives of the four permanent members of the Security Council to meet to discuss this in the near future.
The preliminary discussions referred to by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 10th February are already in progress. [Vol. 777, c. 874.]

Mr. Mayhew: Will the Foreign Secretary agree that the resolution cannot be implemented if Israel continues in her refusal to withdraw from conquered Arab territories? Would it not greatly help and encourage Israel in her refusal if she were to be sold British arms for use in these conquered territories, and would

not my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the sale of British arms at this time to Israel for use in conquered Arab territories would be highly dangerous and unprincipled?

Mr. Stewart: Clearly, the resolution cannot be fully carried out without withdrawal because withdrawal is part of the resolution; so, of course, are a great many other things. We must consider applications about arms on their merits, but it has been our object all the time to urge on both parties the importance of doing everything that will show their willingness to carry out all parts of the resolution.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he will not be intimidated by Gaullist bullying from continuing his efforts to co-ordinate European policy towards the Middle East, and, in particular, that he will not allow the conference of W.E.U. later this week to be called off?

Mr. Stewart: I think that really arises on the next Question.

Mr. Jackson: Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that there is a distinction between the supply of arms for domestic self-defence and the supply of arms which might be used, for example, in the occupied territories against the Arab peoples? Surely there is a difference between the two?

Mr. Stewart: There is a difference, of course. This is one of many factors which we have to take into account in all transactions relating to arms.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that in any four-Power meeting he will raise again the matter contained in his declaration of June, 1967, calling for a complete suspension of armament supplies by all nations to the Middle East? Will he confirm or deny that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to sell Centurion tanks to Israel? Whilst Israel undoubtedly has the right to defend herself, will this not make our own position as arbitrators in the Security Council very much more difficult?

Mr. Stewart: It has never been the practice to make pronouncements on particular transactions, but we have previously expressed our desire to have a


general restriction on arms supplies and our willingness to take part. I have no doubt that this will come up in the Four Power conversations.

Mr. Shinwell: May we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that in any peace-keeping with which Her Majesty's Government are associated it must be clearly understood that no one from any of the Arab countries will be allowed to interfere with the underpants of a British soldier?

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate discussions with Italy, France and other Western European countries with a view to co-ordinating policies towards the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the special meeting of Western European Union Ministers he called in London for Friday, 14th February.

Mr. M. Stewart: As I said on 13th February, I asked for a meeting of the Permanent Council of Western European Union on 14th February because there was only limited time for discussion on the Middle East at the Western European Union Ministerial meeting at Luxembourg on 6th and 7th February. We felt that there would be advantage in having a fuller opportunity to consult our friends in Europe in greater depth in view of the forthcoming meeting of the four permanent members of the Security Council. Our hopes that the meeting on 14th February would be positively useful were fully justified, and this view was entirely shared by our European partners.—[Vol. 777, c. 1566–7.]

Mr. Mayhew: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for his prompt action following the appearance of this Question on the Order Paper, may I ask him whether these European countries, in order to encourage Israel to withdraw, might lot consider making a special contribution within the United Nations to Israel's security on her old frontiers?

Mr. Stewart: That clearly is a matter that European countries could consider, and it was not necessarily in this connection but because the peace of the Middle

East is of concern to so many European countries that I thought it was right to have these consultations.

Mr. Walters: Is the Foreign Secretary aware, however, that if he wishes to coordinate the policy and also maintain British influence in the Middle East, which is growing at the moment, it would be a great mistake to supply arms now to Israel?

Mr. Stewart: I am noting, of course, what hon. Members are saying in this matter.

Sir B. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend, in discussing these matters, take into consideration the fact that the U.S.S.R. has been supplying vast quantities of arms to the Arabs and, in the event of discussions taking place, that the U.S.S.R. itself sent a resolution to the Assembly some years ago stating that if in countries saboteurs are trained the country which it is proposed to be attacked has the right not only to react against the offending State but to regard the matter as an act of aggression?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I am aware of this, and anything that is done on arms will be most useful if it can be done by joint action between the Powers.

Mr. Digby: Will the Foreign Secretary resist any attacks on the Secretary-General of W.E.U. because of the calling of this successful meeting last Friday?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, and I think that would be the view of all the other members of W.E.U.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winnick.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order. Since the Foreign Secretary declined to answer my earlier question on the ground that it arose on this Question and not on the previous one, would it not be reasonable to allow me to put my question at this stage?

Mr. Speaker: It would be reasonable but not in order at the moment. Mr. Winnick.

Greece

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her


Majesty's Government towards the continued membership of Greece in the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Stewart: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) on 10th February. Our consultations with other member Governments have not yet been completed.[Vol. 777, c. 882.]

Mr. Winnick: Will the Foreign Secretary give a firm guarantee today that the British Government will actively support the resolution passed by the Council of Europe on Greece, and will he say why it is that on so many occasions the Foreign Office lags behind Scandinavia in exposing the brutal dictatorship in Greece—is it because it is a Right-wing dictatorship?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the last part of my hon. Friend's Question is in any way justified by the facts. The resolution calls on the Council of Ministers to take appropriate action and that clearly requires consultation between them. The meeting of the Council of Ministers will be in May, there will be time for consultation, and it ought to take place.

Sir G. de Freitas: In considering the Government's attitude, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that all but one of the all-party British delegation in the Assembly voted for this resolution, and the one who did not vote abstained, he did not vote against it?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, I am very much aware of that, and of the very strong feeling there was in the Assembly on this question.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the increased naval activity of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Eastern Mediterranean, he will give an assurance that he will support the continued inclusion of Greece within the Atlantic and European organisations of which it is a member.

Mr. M. Stewart: No Government have proposed Greece's expulsion from these organisations.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We may all deplore the delay in holding elections and in reinstating free institutions in Greece, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no action will be taken which will weaken our defences in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Mr. Stewart: It is our desire—and I believe that it is shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House—to see constitutional liberties restored in Greece, but I would not want to take action which would weaken N.A.T.O. without forwarding that purpose.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should we trouble ourselves about the presence of Soviet naval forces in the Mediterranean? Has not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence declared that they can be shot out of the water in a few minutes?

Mr. Stewart: Although the Question referred to that point, that is not the only one in our minds. The strength and solidity of N.A.T.O. everywhere is of first-class importance.

Czechoslovakia

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations are being made at the United Nations and other international bodies over the continued Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): None, Sir. The question of Czechoslovakia remains before the Security Council.

Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is as much admiration amongst British people as there is amongst Czechs for the noble motives which led Jan Palach to take his life a few weeks ago, and that the guilt of the Munich Agreement is one reason why we have a special regard for the Czech people now under Russian occupation?

Mr. Roberts: Certainly I agree with the general purport and spirit of what my hon. Friend says. I must warn, him, however, that, when he deals with specific


treaties, there are a number of international questions as to legality which need to be considered very carefully.

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite the United States Government to join in a new initiative to secure the banning of underground nuclear tests under proper conditions of inspection and verification.

Mr. M. Stewart: We have already taken the initiative in making certain proposals to facilitate the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban. We hope that all states concerned will join in a constructive discussion of this subject when the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committeee reconvenes on 6th March.

Mr. Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that any wider adherence to the nuclear non-proliferation agreement is likely to depend, in some measure at least, on the closing of this remaining gap in the test ban treaty? Will he instruct his right hon. and noble Friend who is responsible for disarmament to give this the very highest priority when the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee resumes its meetings?

Mr. Stewart: We have always realised that the real significance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty depended on what steps were taken in other spheres of activity. That is why my right hon. Friend has been so active at Geneva in promoting this and other measures.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: When the Eighteen-Nation Committee meets again, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can have brought before it the progress which has been made at the Lincoln Laboratory in the United States, with the co-operation of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, on what is known as the Vela Uniform project for the identification of underground explosions?

Mr. Stewart: I should like to consider that.

N.A.T.O. (Nuclear Strategy)

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to initiate dis-

cussions with the new United States administration concerning the control of Great Britain's nuclear deterrent within an Atlantic or multilateral framework.

47. Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with the new United States administration the effects of the nuclear strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on foreign policy.

Mr. M. Stewart: Nuclear strategy is the subject of regular discussion within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, notably in the Nuclear Planning Group of which both the United Kingdom and the United States are members. The foreign policy and defence arrangements of individual members of the Alliance are of course reflected in these discussions.

Mr. Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that Her Majesty's Government's earlier proposals for an Atlantic nuclear force remain the best way forward for stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and do the Government still adhere to their pledge to internationalise our strategic nuclear forces?

Mr. Stewart: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I would refer to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 30th January. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have to see what progress is made in the Nuclear Planning Group.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that there is the closest collaboration with the United States on nuclear strategy and that this close collaboration is likely to continue?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has it not always been Her Majesty's Government's view and the American Government's view that we should not be the first to use nuclear weapons? Would my right hon. Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend to see whether this is not at variance with what he has been saying recently?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think that my hon. Friend is correct about it.

Commonwealth Immigration (Bilateral Talks)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with other Commonwealth countries, since the Prime Ministers' Conference, about problems of migration and nationality; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his bilateral talks on migration with the East African and Indian Governments.

Mr. M. Stewart: The bilateral talks on Commonwealth immigration, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in his answer to Questions on 21st January—[Vol. 776, c. 253.]—have not yet taken place.
We hope that we shall be able to start these talks in the near future.

Mr. Lane: As progress with this problem could be of considerable help towards the maintenance of racial harmony in this country, would the Government pursue these consultations with the greatest urgency, and would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to keep the House regularly informed about their progress, in view of the great public interest?

Mr. Stewart: We shall do our best to make the speediest progress that we can, and I will see that the House is kept informed.

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given good will on all sides, there is a possibility of a solution, provided that the Kenya Government do not deport too many Asians too quickly, that the Indian Government give a proportion of them a temporary haven, and that the British Government accept their ultimate responsibility for these British citizens?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the spirit of that is the right approach. There is a contribution which several Commonwealth countries can make to the solution of this problem.

St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations with St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his policy with regard to St. Kitts and Anguilla; and what new initiative he plans to seek a settlement.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in negotiations to continue the appointment of a British administrator in Anguilla.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, before the discussions which are to take place during the visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Associated States of the Eastern Caribbean, he will arrange with the authorities of the St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla group for a visit to Anguilla by the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 5th of February [Vol. 777, c. 127–9]. As regards a new initiative, my hon. Friend will do what he can, within the limits imposed by the constitutional position, when he visits the Associated States of the Eastern Caribbean later this month.

Mr. Marten: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the great majority of Anguillans wish to retain their links with Britain and the Commonwealth? As an earnest of our good intentions, could he arrange for a senior British officer to return to Anguilla, as that is what the people want, and also protect them from the shoal of financial sharks which may well be moving in for a killing in that area?

Mr. Roberts: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the sentiments of the Anguillan people. My hon.


Friend hopes to meet all concerned when he visits the area, and certainly he will consult with Mr. Lee, who lately was the administrator on the island.

Mr. Fisher: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that his hon. Friend will discuss the matter with the Premier of St. Kitts and with Mr. Webster of Anguilla, and try to continue the policy of mediation between the two, possibly with a view to a confederal solution? Is he aware of any help being received from the independent Governments in the Caribbean, who should be as anxious as we are to see the problems solved?

Mr. Roberts: On the range of his contacts I could not prejudge what my hon. Friend will decide, but I should expect that these would be very wide and representative. Concerning a Caribbean initiative, if I may call it that, certainly this will be one of the things that he will bear in mind.

Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most Anguillans feel that they have been deserted by Britain? What are the Government doing to dispel this most unfortunate impression, and may I ask whether the Minister's hon. Friend is going to Anguilla?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will decide on the spot, in the circumstances obtaining, whether he will go to Anguilla. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think it fair to say that the Anguillans have been deserted. What has happened is that Anguilla has taken unilateral action to terminate the interim arrangements.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an absolute assurance that any request from the Government of St. Kitts for arms with which to crash the rebellion will be refused?

Mr. Roberts: I think that we should meet those points if and when they arise. I do not anticipate that any such situation will ever arise.

Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the St. Kitts Government have imposed sanctions on mail and trade to Anguilla? Is it not a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that this country, responsible for the external affairs of

these islands, is apparently unable to solve this dispute? Have the Government any proposal to invite the help of other Commonwealth Governments in the Caribbean in finding a solution?

Mr. Roberts: The cessation of mail deliveries is an internal matter. Nevertheless, when my hon. Friend visits the area he will look into this very carefully and seek ways of resolving this difficult problem. As to the Caribbean initiative, I repeat that this will be one of the matters that my hon. Friend will bear in mind.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I will raise the matter again.

European Unity (M. Harmel's Proposals)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the Harmel proposals.

Mr. David Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to carry forward plans for European unification in areas not covered by the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the recent meeting of the Western European Union Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg.

Mr. M. Stewart: At the Luxembourg meeting of Western European Union on 6th and 7th February I expressed again the Government's full support for Monsieur Harmel's proposals, which had been set out in an Italian paper prepared in consultation with other member Governments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House on 10th February of the agreement reached at that meeting. I regard this agreement as a useful step towards closer harmonisation of policies in fields not covered by the Treaty of Rome.—[Vol. 777, c. 879–80.]

Mr. Marten: Is it not true that the original Harmel proposals have in fact


been watered down by French objections? Are not the Government, by continuing this danse macabre in the backyard of the Common Market, really doing great damage to French relations with the Common Market by tending to isolate them? Is it not time that they stopped doing this?

Mr. Stewart: I do not accept that for a moment. It is quite true that in seeking agreement with the French we considered what presentation in the Italian paper would be the most likely to reach general agreement. It is not our desire to isolate the French. But we cannot take the view that no progress can be made without their agreement.

Mr. Howell: Whilst a worsening of relations with the French is to be regretted, would the Foreign Secretary accept that the position on European unity and the way for France is broadly right? Having taken the initiative on foreign policy, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate where else he thinks favourable initiatives on this basis could be taken?

Mr. Stewart: The Italian paper referred to a number of other spheres; for example, defence and technology. It was thought right to begin with this one, and we shall persist.

Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend regard any attempt to suggest that we are trying to isolate the French as mischievous, and will he give greater attention to technological collaboration and scientific development?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. I hope it is an ignorant rather than a mischievous suggestion that we are deliberately trying to isolate the French. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there is a later Question on that matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he will not be intimidated, by continuous Gaul-list blustering and bullying in this matter, from pursuing these very constructive proposals, and will he also resist any effort to call off the W.E.U. meeting later this week in Paris?

Mr. Stewart: We have no intention of calling off that meeting. However, I shall try to avoid, if I can, words like

"blustering" and "bullying". We have stated quite clearly what we propose to do and why we think it is right to go on doing it.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend say what plans he has for meetings with the French Foreign Secretary in the near future? Does he agree with the proposition that Britain and France have a natural community of interest as against certain other countries in both Eastern and Western Europe?

Mr. Stewart: There are very close connections between the French and ourselves and there are frequent opportunities for exchange of views. I agree that there ought to be a great community of interest between the French and ourselves and that present differences of opinion are very much to be regretted. However, I do not think that they are of our making.

Mr. Sandys: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the highly successful initiative that he took in convening the W.E.U. meeting on the Middle East, may I ask whether he is aware that there is much satisfaction on the continent with the knowledge that when the British Government discuss these matters in New York they will not only be representing their own views, but they will also be able to take into account the views of their partners in Western Europe?

Mr. Stewart: I believed that it was right to hold and take part in this meeting not only as an earnest of our belief in European consultation, but for the reason that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. Although the four permanent members have a special responsibility towards the Middle East, it would be most undesirable for it to be thought that they were going to try to settle the whole matter themselves without regard to the interests or beliefs of other countries.

Rhodesia

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has put to Mr. Smith for a second guarantee which does not include participation from outside Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Foley: The alternative proposal put to the régime by my right hon.


Friend the Minister without Portfolio during his visit to Salisbury, provided for a second safeguard mechanism, which would not only begin in Rhodesia, but would also leave the last word with the Rhodesian people.

Mr. Wall: Did not these proposals require to be activated through the Privy Council? Does the Minister appreciate that any question of settlement must be based on the second guarantee? Will he make it clear that an adequate second guarantee which lay within the ambit of Rhodesian sovereignty would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Foley: The proposed amendment that we made in Salisbury to the second safeguard was to give the Privy Council a sieving rôle. This was not to be the initiating, nor the final arbiter. In that respect, we have gone a long way to meeting the objections of the Rhodesian régime.

Mr. Rose: In view of the new constitution proposed in Rhodesia, is it not futile to go on trying to negotiate with Mr. Smith for an agreement which can only be based on shifting sands? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, withdraw immediately the "Fearless" proposals?

Mr. Foley: I have seen Press reports of the new constitutional proposals. We have not yet received the authoritative details. From what has been published, it is evident that the proposals are wholly inconsistent with the six principles. No constitution that may be introduced in Rhodesia in present circumstances will be legally valid. In view of the clear inconsistency between the new proposals for a constitution and the six principles, it is all the more important to keep our proposals before the people of Rhodesia so that they may realise that there is a more hopeful attitude which may develop in their country.

Mr. Thorpe: When the Government receive confirmation of, and have had a chance: to consider in detail, this proposed constitution, may we take it that because they regard it as constituting a rejection of the "Fearless" proposals and the six principles, they will have no alternative but to withdraw those proposals?

Mr. Foley: I should await the consideration of their proposals.

Mr. William Hamilton: If my hon. Friend says that the new constitutional proposals as published in the Press are against the six principles, and if, as is likely, the new constitution will be accepted by the white minority in Rhodesia, what on earth is the point of leaving the "Fearless" proposals on the table?

Mr. Foley: I think that the point of leaving the "Fearless" proposals on the table is that the people of Rhodesia, in making up their minds, will have a choice between the proposals of the Smith régime, which abrogate the six principles, and the "Fearless" proposals.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his hon. Friend to consider a treaty safeguard?

Mr. Foley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that that was one of the proposals mentioned by the Prime Minister during the debate last October as one of the alternatives which had also been rejected by the Smith régime.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Government constantly to bear in mind that the whole of experience in Southern Africa has shown that to hand sovereign independence to a small white minority can lead only to disaster?

Mr. Foley: That is why we have advocated the proposals in "Fearless", and if the people of Rhodesia as a whole, under a free choice, have the means of saying "Yea" or "No" we shall abide by that. They must be the final arbiters.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the South African Government about the situation in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Foley: We have of course discussed the Rhodesian situation with the South African Government, as with other African Governments, from time to time: but discussions of this kind between Governments must remain confidential.

Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is every reason to believe that the South African Government regard


the present illegal régime in Rhodesia as an acute embarrassment and a threat to the long-term security of South Africa? Is not this the right moment to investigate, with the Government of South Africa, at least the possibility of Britain's resuming a direct presence in Rhodesia?

Mr. Foley: We have our differences with South Africa over the Rhodesian problem but we share a common interest in the stability of Southern Africa. I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion would get very far.

Gibraltar

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his study of the implications of the Spanish extension of air and sea territorial limits for Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Foley: The decree published by the Spanish Government on 20th January apparently creates a contiguous zone extending six miles from Spanish territorial waters, in which the Spanish authorities may exercise fiscal control for customs purposes. The decree does not appear to be directed against Gibraltar, and cannot in any case affect our existing rights there.

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this is not the start of a new squeeze on Gibraltar? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Spanish Government that we shall not tolerate any interference with air or sea access to Gibraltar?

Mr. Foley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to have any further talks with Spain in which the issue of the sovereignty of Gibraltar would remain on the agenda.

Mr. Foley: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) on 20th January, neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Spanish Government have proposed a renewal of talks. There was no agenda for the Anglo-Spanish talks held in Madrid in March, 1968.—[Vol. 776, c. 22.]

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If they are renewed will the hon. Gentleman confirm, as set out in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué, that the wishes and interests of the inhabitants must be paramount?

Mr. Foley: Yes.

International Corps of Volunteers for Development

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to expedite the study by the United Nations Economic and Social Council of the feasibility of creating an international corps of volunteers for development which could enable youth to form an effective force for economic and social progress.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: General Assembly resolution No. 2460 of 15th January, 1969, requested the Economic and Social Council to undertake this feasibility study. Until the Council meets in July to discuss this request, nothing can be done to expedite the study. Meanwhile, we are carefully considering the subject, so that we can contribute fully to the discussions in July.

Mr. Longden: Would not such a corps provide the "global challenge" which is desired by those students genuinely concerned about the problems of the Third World, and also provide a means for helping to solve them?

Mr. Roberts: Indeed, it would. There are certain administrative difficulties of a quite serious nature, but we are disposed to support this move, and we hope that these difficulties might be overcome with the benefits which the hon. Gentleman has so graphically described.

United Nations Relief and Works Agency

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much each of the 101 members of the United Nations who recently voted in favour of extending the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for three years from 30th June, 1969, and who urged that members' contributions should be increased, is now contributing to the Agency; and which


of them has increased its contribution since that vote.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As the Answer is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Longden: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that if this great expense had been borne by the Arab States and by Israel in appropriate proportions the matter would have been settled long ago?

Mr. Roberts: I should rather say that if the burden had been more equitably shared by all members of the United Nations the work of relief would have been even more effective than it has been, and that the prospects for the future would be brighter.

Following is the information:

UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY

Governmental contributions (expressed in U.S. $) to U.N.R.W.A. made by the 101 countries who voted in favour of Resolution A/SPC/L.165 in the Special Political Committee of the United Nations which, inter alia, "urges non-contributing governments to contribute and contributing governments to increase their contributions". Contributions for 1968 are actual sums received by U.N.R.W.A. for the year ended 31st December, 1968; pledges are the amounts indicated as contributions for 1969 at the Annual Pledging Conference held in New York on 6th December, 1968.

Country
Contribution for 1968
Pledge for 1969


Afghanistan
—
—


Algeria
—
—


Argentina*
—
2,000


Australia*
201,600
357,420(a)


Austria*
10,000
15,000


Belgium*
35,000
60,000


Bolivia
—
—


Botswana
—
—


Brazil
—
—


Bulgaria
—
—


Burma
—
—


Burundi
—
—


Byelorussia
—
—


Cambodia
—
—


Canada
1,727,315
1,111,100(b)


Ceylon
800
—


Chile
—
1,000


China
30,000
30,000


Colombia
—
—


Congo (Brazzaville)
—
—


Congo (Democratic Republic of.)
—
to be announced


Cyprus
560
to be announced


Czechoslovakia
—
—


Dahomey
—
—


Dominican Republic.
—
—

Suez Canal (Detained Ships)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British ships are now detained in the Suez Canal; what estimate he has of resulting costs so far incurred by the ship owners; what representations he has recently made to the United Arab Republic; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Minister of State's visit to the British ships trapped in the Suez Canal; and what recent efforts he has made to secure their release.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the British ships detained in the Suez Canal.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representation he has made to the United Arab Republic about the detention of British ships in the Suez Canal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The owners of the four British ships involved estimate their costs so far at approximately £1½ million.
I discussed prospects for the release of the ships with President Nasser and with the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic while in Cairo. Hon. Members will now have seen reports that, following talks last week between the United Arab Republic authorities and representatives of the shipowners, it may be possible to proceed to a survey of the southern sector of the Canal with a view to the eventual release of the ships.

Mr. King: I am most grateful for any movement in this matter. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the detention of British ships, which imposes on their owners a cost of £1½ million, is one of the gravest diplomatic excesses that has been permitted for a long time? Will the hon. Gentleman be very chary of giving any diplomatic support in Cairo as long as that position obtains?

Mr. Roberts: I think that if there is sufficient restraint all round we may hope cautiously for a solution of this difficulty. I do not think that remarks of that kind will help.

Mr. Dalyell: Has any date been given for when the survey of the southern entrance might be carried out?

Mr. Roberts: No, Sir.

Mr. Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the U.A.R. wishes to clear the Canal and facilitate international passage, the policy of the Government should be to back the attitude of Cairo and see that this waterway is cleared as soon as possible?

Mr. Roberts: Our attitude should be, as it has been, to promote co-operation to secure the release of these ships. It does not depend on one side more than on the other.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that in so far as he, in his personal talks with President Nasser, may have contributed to this easing of the situation in regard to British ships he will be congratulated by many people on both sides of the House? Can the Minister say whether he had further discussions with


President Nasser about the future international régime of the waterway so as to safeguard international shipping from this happening again?

Mr. Roberts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. On the second part of his question, I must say that this is a much larger question which I do not think arises from this issue, and would best be dealt with on a more ample occasion.

Hong Kong (Arrested Schoolboy)

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances the 11-year-old schoolboy, Lin Feng, was arrested in Hong Kong; what charges were preferred against him; what was the verdict and the sentence; and whether he is still in prison, and where.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: If my hon. Friend has in mind a boy called Lan Fung, he was arrested in March, 1968, charged and convicted with riding a bicycle with a pillion passenger, obstructing the police and assaulting a police officer. He was given a complete discharge on the first two charges. On the third charge a small fine was imposed with the option of one day's imprisonment, but the time already spent on remand was accepted in lieu of this punishment.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware, nevertheless, that there are a number of arrests and imprisonments in Hong Kong in circumstances which we would not tolerate in this country? Is it not imperative that we show our best, not our shoddiest, political goods in this shop window which is so close to the Chinese Republic, and which is watched so carefully by the Chinese people?

Mr. Roberts: I do not think it could fairly be said that the measures taken in Hong Kong to maintain peace and security can be strongly criticised. The situations are created, not by the Government on Hong Kong but by others who have an interest in creating disturbances, and the kind of powers which the Government of Hong Kong feel obliged to adopt and to apply are applied with the utmost care and humanity.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions with the Argentine Government concerning the future of the Falkland Islands.

Mr. M. Stewart: There have been no further discussions since I spoke in the House on 11th and 12th December 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 424–6, 608–13.]

Mr. Peyton: Would the House be correct in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to mean that this issue has been recently interred and will not be resurrected?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. It may be possible to continue these discussions.

Mr. Braine: Having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's reply, is the position now that as the Falkland islanders are firmly resolved to remain British there can be no question of the transfer of sovereignty? Why does this issue remain on the agenda?

Mr. Stewart: That matter has been explained several times. There can be a question of transfer of sovereignty only as part of an arrangement which will give a permanently satisfactory relationship between the islands and Argentina, and if the islanders themselves regarded such an arrangement as satisfactory to their interests. I think that it will be desirable to resume the discussions, but they are bound all the time by that condition.

Mafeking (Sale of Land)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the arrangements for the sale of Crown land at Mafeking, South Africa.

Mr. Foley: The sale of the former Crown land at Mafeking, on which the headquarters of the Bechuanaland Protectorate used to be situated, is now a matter for the Botswana Government. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development told my hon. Friend on 21st January, there was an agreement under which the proceeds from the sale were to be applied to offset budgetary aid which we gave towards the


cost of the new capital at Gaberones. This is still operative.—[Vol. 776, c. 222.]

Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the full cost of the transfer of the administrative capital from Mafeking to Gaberones has not yet been covered? Is not there a way of making sure that this extra financial asset can be added to our grant to the Botswana Government, since the need to transfer the administrative capital results from our administering Botswana from inside South Africa for many years?

Mr. Foley: This stems from an agreement made in 1963 with the Government of the Bechuanaland Protectorate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has indicated that the proceeds of the sale of this land would be treated as additional Botswana revenue which would be taken into account in determining the deficit on the Botswana budget.

Malaysia (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the United States Government about the supply to Malaysia of advanced supersonic aircraft and military equipment.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have received no formal representations, but there have been informal, confidential discussions with the United States officials about regional security matters in view of our common interests in the stability of the South-East Asian area.

Mr. Dalyell: Do I take it that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary desires these negotiations to be kept confidential?

Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When he arrives will the Government make it clear to Mr. Nixon that if Britain proposes to supply British aircraft to Malaysia it is Britain's business and not America's?

Mr. Stewart: I will repeat what I said, namely, that the United States and our selves have a common interest in the stability of South-East Asia.

Mr. Braine: Is it not unfortunate that this row over aircraft should be taking

place before the five-Power conference, which was scheduled to take place in May? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British spokesman in Kuala Lumpur last Thursday was correct in his statement that this five-Power conference was being delayed? If so, what are the reasons?

Mr. Stewart: That takes the question a little wider, but the five-Power talks will go on. The agenda has not yet been drawn up. As to the supply of aircraft, we have made proposals which are designed to meet Malaysia's requirements for effective air defence.

Hong Kong (Prisoners)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the practice of locking-in in the Hong Kong prisons; for what periods prisoners are subjected to this treatment; and how many of those detained following the demonstrations of 1967 are at present undergoing this treatment.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind those occasions when prisoners have refused to work and have of necessity been confined to their cells, except during exercise periods. Such confinement has ceased as soon as they have agreed to work. No prisoners are confined to their cells in this manner at present.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not correct that the Hong Kong regulations confine this practice to a maximum of three months, whereas some prisoners have been in confinement for eight months?

Mr. Roberts: There are no prisoners in that condition at the moment, and I know of none who have been in that condition for as long as my hon. Friend has suggested. However, I shall check this point and let him know if there is anything in it.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Should not we turn our attention to what is going on in Chinese prisons? Only yesterday we read about a British sea captain who had been imprisoned, and two yachtsmen were arrested yesterday. So it goes on almost daily. What are the Government doing about it?

Mr. Roberts: There is a Question down about that.

Mr. Whitaker: I agree with what was said in the last supplementary question, but is it not regrettable that several practices carried on in Hong Kong inhibit Britain's acceptance of the Human Rights Convention? Would it not be better to accept the request of the Hong Kong Bar Association for trial by jury, as is the normal practice, instead of detention without trial, which is totally un-British?

Mr. Roberts: That is a large question. It depends on what view one takes of human rights. When there is a question of intimidation and the threat of a bomb outrage it is up to the authorities to do what they can to prevent people being intimidated and being bombed. I would have thought that freedom from intimidation and being blown up by a bomb were basic human rights.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Are not the Government of Hong Kong at the moment reducing the number of people in detention almost to vanishing point?

Mr. Roberts: That is so.

China (Mr. Anthony Grey)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding the illegal imprisonment of Mr. Anthony Grey by the Chinese authorities.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on 20th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 29–30.]

Mr. Molloy: With respect, that is not a completely satisfactory reply. One would have thought that there would have been something more to report to the House. Is my right hon. Friend keeping in touch with the relatives of Mr. Grey and his colleagues in the journalistic profession? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will endeavour to keep up the pressure to see that this disgusting crime which the Chinese have perpetrated on this man is ended as swiftly as possible?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. My reply did not mean that we had ceased to make representations about this. We have kept in touch with both Mr. Grey's relatives and his colleagues. I think that the House agrees with the description given by my hon. Friend of the Chinese Government's action.

Mr. Peyton: Although the Government may have been absolutely justified at the start in observing an attitude of great restraint towards the Chinese Government, has not the time come for some international condemnation of their totally uncivilised policies?

Mr. Stewart: There has been widespread condemnation of the Chinese Government's action, not only by this country but by other countries. We are by no means the only country whose citizens are being treated in this manner. I would remind the House that in recent months some British subjects who were previously detained have been released. For the present we must proceed to handle this matter as we now are.

Mr. Manuel: Does my right hon. Friend not recognise that some of us have constituents who have been detained for many months and that we are reaching the end of our patience? Will he consider relieving hon. Members from the constant anxiety and messages from relatives? Will he send someone out from the Foreign Office to see where these people are? We cannot even discover where they are or what prison they are in.

Mr. Stewart: I by no means underestimate the anxiety of the families of these British subjects or the feelings of hon. Members about this. My hon. Friend will realise that our power to discover even in some cases where they are is limited, but we are in continual touch with the Chinese Government about this. We have been able to make some progress.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Although we are naturally very impatient—I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman understands that—and it is very important that our restraint should not be misunderstood overseas, is it not at the same time necessary for all of us to recognise that what we are trying to do is the best for Mr. Grey?

Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Whitaker: Will the new British chargé d'affaires, when he arrives in Peking, ask for consular access to the other British subjects detained there, including my constituents, the Gordon family and their 13-year-old son, with whom there has been no contact for 17 months?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hastings: What about the British sea captain and the yachts mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey)? When will the Foreign Secretary make a statement about these, and what does he propose?

Mr. Stewart: That is beyond today's Question, but I will consider whether it would be proper to make a statement.

ISRAEL (ARMS SUPPLIES)

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the disclosure that Her Majesty's Government are negotiating with the Israeli Government for the sale of arms to Israel for use in conquered Arab territories.
I submit that this is a plain specific matter, and that its importance is self-evident. There will be no chance of a peaceful settlement to the dispute unless Israel withdraws from the conquered Arab territories. To sell arms to Israel at this moment will strengthen and en courage her in her refusal to withdraw and may, indeed, be used not only for external military operations, but in the suppression of civilian Arab populations in Gaza and other occupied territories—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into the merits of what he wants to debate.

Mr. Mayhew: In conclusion, therefore, I submit that this is also an urgent

matter, since this arms deal may be concluded at any moment and the danger of the escalating war in the Middle East is real and immediate.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for letting me know this morning that he would seek an emergency debate. He asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the disclosure that Her Majesty's Government are negotiating with the Israeli Government for the sale of arms to Israel for use in conquered Arab territories.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for his decision. I have given careful consideraion to the representations of the hon. Member, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provision of the revised Standing Order and that, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Emanuel Shinwell: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have established the convention that there is no question, when Mr. Speaker refuses an application under Standing Order No. 9, of our debating the matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not break it.

Mr. Shinwell: My point is that, in the circumstances and in view of the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), would it not be desirable to have a debate? If there were a debate, I would "take the trousers off him".

Mr. Speaker: What the right hon. Gentleman is doing in the first part of that question is trying to suggest that Mr. Speaker was wrong in not allowing an Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9. I have nothing to do with either hon. Members' trousers.

BILL PRESENTED

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS)

Bill to amend the law with respect to proceedings for offences under the Auctions (Bid ding Agreements) Act 1927; to make fresh provision as to the rights of a seller of goods by auction where an agreement subsists that a person or persons shall abstain from bidding for the goods; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Costain; supported by Sir John Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Chichester-Clark, Mr. Anthony Royle, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Iremonger, and Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS BILL

Referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — FAMILY LAW REFORM BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.36 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a very important Measure of law reform, but it is not just a lawyers Bill. It introduces important social reforms and its consequences will be far-reaching. Its purpose is to make three major changes in family law and each of its main parts stems from the Report of a separate Committee. Part I implements, broadly, the recommendations of the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority, Part II implements the Report of Lord Justice Russell's Committee on the law of succession in relation to illegitimate persons and Part III is the result of the Law Commission's consideration of the possibility of introducing blood tests in civil proceedings where paternity is in dispute.
It used to be a reproach against Governments that, when a problem needing solution arose, the matter was referred to a Committee, the Committee produced a Report and the Report was then consigned to a Whitehall oubliette, there to vanish. This Government, at any rate, have an impressive record for early implementation of the recommendations of Committees in the field of law reform.
When I recently moved the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill, I referred to the work of lawyers—judges, barristers and solicitors alike—in recommending and generating interest in law reform today. It used to be a taunt that one could no more expect lawyers to reform the law than tigers to reform the jungle, but that could not fairly be said today, even by the most severe critics of the lawyers.
I should like to pay tribute to all the members of the Latey and Russell Committees, both lawyers and non-lawyers, for the services which they have rendered and the considerable amount of time and energy that they gave to producing their


impressive Reports. To the Law Commission, also, we are indebted for the authoritative Reports that it has produced.
There is general agreement, I think, that family law as it stands needs reform. Only recently have we come to think of family law as a specific field of its own. The Law Commission is now engaged in a study of a number of important aspects of family law and I hope that the implementation of the Latey Report will be the first step towards the systematic reform which is clearly needed.
When the Latey Report was published, in 1967, the Government thought that an opportunity should be given for debate both here and in another place. I need not go over what was said here at that time, but right hon. and hon. Members will remember that the Latey Committee decided, by a majority of nine to two, that the age of full legal capacity should be lowered to 18 in the field which it had examined.
It is important to note that the area of dissent in the Committee was in substance confined to eight recommendations about the age at which full capacity should be conferred in the field of marriage, wardship and to some extent of contract. The Committee was unanimous on the other 44 recommendations which it felt were urgently needed to bring up to date the law affecting young people. The Committee, as the House knows, did not consider the voting age. Because it is a constitutional matter, it has always been dealt with separately. But the Government have introduced a provision in the Representation of the People Bill, which is now in another place, to lower the voting age to 18. That goes hand in hand with this Bill.
It was the view of the Latey Committee—and the Government are in full agreement with it—that the law relating to young people must match their needs as much as possible and reflect social conditions as they are today. There is no magic, and there never has been any magic, about the choice of the age of 21. Indeed, it appears that we have arrived at it by a process of historical accident. On mediaeval times the young burgess became of full age when he could count money and measure cloth; the

young sokeman—that has no alcoholic meaning, but means a yeoman farmer—came of age when he was 15 and the tenant by knight's service when he was 21.
The latter age, which later became general, apparently had some connection with the ability of the young man to sustain a heavy suit of armour and lift a lance or sword at the same time—not, the House may think, a very relevant consideration today.
Nor are there many indications today of the supposed need in the last century to protect from the clutches of moneylenders infants who were said by the Law Journal of the time to be

"prone to horse-flesh, dog-flesh, cigars, sparkling drinks, swell attire, betting and making presents to ladies who are sometimes fair and often fragile."

Mr. J. T. Price: The House will be interested in my right hon. and learned Friend's reference to moneylenders. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that modern moneylenders are much more efficient than were ancient moneylenders and that the whole question of hire-purchase and money lending for juniors is a vexed question about which I may require to speak later.

The Attorney-General: The House will listen to my hon Friend with great attention. Control over money lending and the restrictions related to it are much stricter today than they were in the last century. If I may anticipate what my hon. Friend will say, some of the provisions of the Trades Descriptions Act and of the earlier Acts in regard to misleading descriptions of goods will be of additional protection to those who might be the victims of the potential sharks, many of whom float about in the waters of our society.
There is a lot of criticism of, and a great deal of publicity about, young people at the moment, particularly those at university. I feel that it would not be a bad thing if the TV cameras were turned more frequently on some of the vast majority of young people who leave school at 15 or later, get jobs, marry and have families before they are 21, and lead normal lives, subject, however, to the legal restrictions which at present affect them, but which, in the view of the Latey Committee and the Government, are no longer geared to their needs or their requirements.


The weight of the evidence which the Committee received was to the effect that the vast majority of young people today are more mature and more responsible than they have ever been, and it is about time that our laws recognised that fact.
Clauses 1 to 3, together with the three Schedules to the Bill, implement the main recommendations of the Latey Committee. Clause 1 provides in general terms that a person shall attain full age at 18 instead of 21 and that all statutory references to minority and infancy shall be construed accordingly. This has the effect of enabling persons who have reached the age of 18 to hold and dispose of property, to make binding contracts and to make wills. The Clause applies to all enactments whenever made, but it does not apply to private dispositions, such as deeds and wills, which were made before the Clause comes into force. It would not be right to interfere with such dispositions which were made in reliance on the existing law. I feel sure that I carry the House with me in that view.
Schedule 2 contains three exceptions to the general change which is brought about by Clause 1. The first is the Regency Acts. It has long been the case that at the age of 18 the Sovereign becomes capable of exercising his or her functions as such and that the heir presumptive or the heir apparent can act as Regent or Counsellor of State. Other members of the Royal Family cannot act as Regent or Counsellor of State until they are 21, and it is proposed not to alter that provision.
The second exception is the voting age which, as I said, is dealt with in the Representation of the People Bill. The exclusion of Section 7 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1695, means that a person would still have to be 21 before he can become a Member of Parliament—so there will be no teenagers in the House yet. The last exception is financial legislation, because changes in taxation are not appropriate to a Bill of this kind and must be considered for a Finance Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has this under consideration at present.
Clause 1 with Schedule 2 also makes a number of transitional provisions with which I need not trouble the House at this stage.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Would the Attorney-General explain the relation between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2? I understand that Schedule 1 gives a list of those Statutes where the change is made and Schedule 2 gives a list of those Statutes where the change is not made. What is to happen to a Statute which is neither in Schedule 1 nor in Schedule 2?

The Attorney-General: I will give consideration to that question and deal with it in due course. I imagine that there must be a simple answer. It is probably that these are the only Acts provisions of which are affected by the Bill.
Clause 2 deals with the age of consent to marry, and it was discussed in general terms in our debate on the Latey Report. It gave rise to an Amendment in another place which would make 20 rather than 18 the age of "free" marriage, as the Latey Committee described it—that is, marriage not needing parental or court consent. It is a convenient if somewhat surprising expression. I must tell the House that it is the Government's intention to move an Amendment in Committee on the Bill which would restore the age to 18. In my view, it would be illogical, irrational and inconvenient should the age of free marriage differ from that of full legal capacity in other respects. But we shall probably discuss that matter in detail in Committee and I will say no more about it now. This Clause also implements a recommendation of the Latey Committee by allowing a superintendent registrar to require written proof of consent to the marriage if he thinks fit in those cases where consent will still be required.
Clause 3 is important in that it reduces from 21 to 18 the age at which a person can make a valid will. The Clause also provides, in effect, that anyone over 18 can take in full right any benefit to which he may be entitled on an intestacy when an intestate dies after the Bill comes into force.
I come to Clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill, which are concerned with the maintenance of children who are, or have been, the subject of guardianship, wardship, affiliation or matrimonial proceedings. It is the intention of the provisions, contained in these Clauses to enable the courts to continue to award maintenance


for children up to the age of 21 although other forms of jurisdiction will cease at 18.
The recommendation of the Latey Committee was that the court should have power to make maintenance orders without any age limit, but the Government do not consider it right to make any change in the existing situation while the Law Commission as a matter of urgency are considering the whole question of financial provision in matrimonial proceedings. This is, therefore, something of a holding operation pending the report of the Law Commission which my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes to receive later in the present session.
Clause 7 will enable the Chancery Division to commit wards of court to the care of a local authority or to order that they should be placed under the supervision of a welfare officer or local authority.
Clause 8 will clear up confusion about the ability to consent to medical treatment by providing that anyone over the age of 16 can give a valid consent to such treatment.
Clause 9 is designed to remove a curious oddity of the law which, in most cases, means that a person attains a given age at the first moment of the day preceding his birthday. The Clause introduces what might be thought to be the obvious solution of providing that a person attains the given age at the first moment of the relevant birthday.
Clause 10 repeals certain enactments relating to minors, like that relating to the fraudulent abduction of heiresses. But it will still be an offence to abduct a girl under 18 whether or not she has property or expectation of it. We move to a previous era in dealing with Section 6 of the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875. This Section, which empowers justices to order imprisonment of an apprentice who fails to comply with direction to perform his duties, is also repealed.
Clause 11, more importantly, will allow persons under full age to be called minors instead of infants, which is the unreal technical name which we give them at the moment.
I come now to Part II of the Bill, which is concerned with the recommendations of the Russell Committee on the Law of Succession in Relation to Illegitimate Persons. Its purpose is to give a better deal to children born out of wedlock who have for far too long been the subject of unfair discrimination.
The law of England and Wales is that where a mother dies intestate, leaving an illegitimate child but no legitimate child, the illegitimate child can share in the distribution of her estate. In all other cases, however, the illegitimate child or any person claiming through an illegitimate link has no claim in the distribution. Furthermore, the illegitimate child has no right to apply to the courts for provision out of his deceased parents' estate under the Inheritance (Family Provisions) Act.
There is yet another disadvantage suffered by the illegitimate child, which is that where a testator makes a gift in his will to his "children" there is a rule of construction that the gift is to be taken to be intended only for legitimate children where no contrary intention is shown. So, at present, it is sadly the case that the illegitimate child is virtually excluded from all benefits of his parents' estate unless a specific provision has been made for him.
The Russell Committee considered that this state of affairs should be ended, and so do the Government. This is what Part II of the Bill seeks to do.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the Russell Committee recommended in favour of ending this state of affairs.

The Attorney-General: As to the rule of construction, I agree. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
The Committee considered the law both of England and Wales and of Scotland, and the Scottish law has already been altered in the sense of this Bill by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1968. The principles underlying Part II of the Bill have thus already been approved by the House and are now part of the law of Scotland.
Clause 13 of the Bill provides that an illegitimate child and his parents shall have the same right to share in each other's estates on an intestacy occurring


after the Clause comes into force as if be were legitimate. The Clause deals only with illegitimate children and not with remoter descendents because it is felt, by both the Russell Committee and the Government, that it was wisest not to go further than the immediate parent-child relationship. I think, and I hope that the House will agree, that the provisions in the Bill go far enough to remove the basic injustice which I have described. The Government and I are satisfied that in making the reforms proposed by the Bill the institution of marriage will in no way be weakened.
Clause 14 deals with the construction of the term "children" in wills by reversing the current rule by which an expression connoting relationship prima facie means such a relationship traced exclusively through legitimate links. Under this Clause, the presumption will be that expressions of this kind are intended to include relationships traced through illegitimate as well as legitimate links. This is a departure from the recommendations of the Russell Committee which thought that the rule of construction should stay as it is.
There are arguments both ways and the matter is nicely balanced. However, the Scottish Law Commission took the opposite view to the Committee and this has now been incorporated in the Scottish Act. My right hon. Friends and I have considered this carefully and are of the opinion that it would be best to follow the Scots, and that is why Clause 14 appears in this form. I should perhaps add that the abolition of the rule will not affect in any way existing dispositions.
Clause 15 will give illegitimate children the right to apply to the court for provision out of the estate of their parents as if they were legitimate.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Before the Attorney-General leaves Part II, may I comment? He said that these provisions would not affect the institution of marriage. Perhaps he would confirm that the overwhelming majority of Christian opinion will support the measures in Part II as righting injustice because very few people today continue in the belief that the sins of the fathers should be visited on the children.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for that intervention. It would seem almost a piece of cruelty to punish a child for the circumstances in which the child was born.
I was turning to Part III of the Bill, which is concerned with questions of proving paternity. [Interruption.]

Mr. J. T. Price: I am sorry if I appeared to be muttering. I did not mean any discourtesy. I remarked that there were some cases where there was reward for the sins of the parents, particularly if there were a distinguished or honourable parent. I do not want to argue that now.

The Attorney-General: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not be so ungenerous as to say that any child of an honourable Baronet should suffer in consequence of the happy chance of that paternity. What the Bill will do is to see that the illegitimate child is treated as fairly as the law permits. Gradually, the attitude of society itself is changing in this field.
For the third time, I turn to Part III of the Bill, which is concerned with questions proving paternity. About three years ago the judges of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division suggested that it might be useful for the Law Commission to consider the whole question of blood tests in cases where paternity was in dispute. In particular, it was felt that an investigation was required into the question whether the court should have power to direct parties involved in cases of this kind to undergo blood tests.
The result of the Law Commission's considerations of these problems was its Report on Blood Tests and Proof of Paternity in Civil Proceedings, which was published at the end of October, 1968. The Commission annexed draft clauses to its Report. These form the basis of this part of the Bill, although there have been a number of changes since their publication.
It appears that it can now be shown conclusively through blood tests that a particular man cannot be the father of a particular child. It can also be shown, with varying degrees of probability, that a man may be the father of a child. It was the view of the Law Commission,


that the civil courts should be allowed to make use of these advances in medical science in assisting them to reach decisions in affiliation proceedings, divorce and nullity proceedings and petitions for declarations of legitimacy.
Blood tests agreed to voluntarily are, of course, not unknown in the courts at the moment and there is a good deal of case law on the subject. But the position, in the view of the Law Commission, is far from clear and the Government accept that it should be regulated by legislation.
In divorce and nullity proceedings, the courts are bound at present by what is known as the presumption of legitimacy. This means that, in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary, a child born to a married woman is held to be the legitimate child of that woman and her husband. The Law Commission has considered this rule and recommends its removal.
Clause 18 of the Bill provides, therefore, that in any civil proceedings where paternity is disputed, the court, on an application by any party to the proceedings—that must intitiate the process; the court does not itself take the initiative—may direct blood tests to be made and the report of those tests shall be receivable in evidence. Affiliation cases constitutes the bulk of such proceedings. At the moment, there is only power in the High Court to order children to be tested and no power at all for an order for adults to be tested; so this provision is a substantial extension of the existing law.
I should make it clear, however, that nobody will be forced to undergo a blood test against his will, but, under Clause 21, the court may draw whatever inference it may think proper from a refusal. The right to refuse is stated expressly in Clause 19.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend spell out with a little more precision the purpose of Clause 21, which appears to give to the court no more power than it would normally have to draw an inference from the fact that evidence has been advanced?

The Attorney-General: It will now have power to extend the field in which the direction can be given. If the party concerned refuses to comply with that

direction I think that will certainly extend the ability of the court to take advantage of the situation. I would imagine that it would tend in most cases to draw adverse conclusions in a wider range of cases if without any satisfactory reason there were a refusal by a party to submit to the tests.
I was emphasising that no one will be forced to undergo a blood test against his will. That is an important part of this Measure.
Clause 19 will also make it clear that any person over 16 is capable of giving a valid consent for himself, which is in line with the general rule laid down in Clause 8, to which I have already referred. There will be provision also for consent to be given on behalf of persons under 16 and mental patients. The administrative arrangements for blood testing will be contained in regulations made by the Home Secretary under Clause 20. They will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
I referred a moment ago to the presumption of legitimacy. Clause 24 implements the recommendation of the Law Commission in this respect and will make it clear that to rebut any presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy it will only be necessary to produce evidence that the probabilities are the other way. This provision is contained in Part IV of the Bill, because it goes rather wider than the field of blood tests dealt with in Part III and brings about a general change in the law of evidence.
Finally, Clause 25 deals with technical matters of registration of birth of an illegitimate child and Clause 26 contains the Short Title, commencement provisions and other matters. I apologise for taking some time over aspects of the Bill of a technical nature. I commend the Bill to the House as a very important measure of legal and social reform which, I hope, will command general support.

4.8 p.m.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: There are certain characteristics of every debate in which I follow the Attorney-General. First, both of us speak to benches not wild with excitement and enthusiasm and not in a House in which hon. Members are crowding below the Bar listening to every word which either he or I says. Secondly, he always deals


with a Bill with great clarity, for which we are always grateful. Thirdly, he always introduces an enjoyable historical anecdote to lighten the general tenor of the debate.
Fourthly, and it is only to this I take exception, the right hon. and learned Gentleman always prefaces his remarks on a piece of legislation with a great flourish about the impressive record of the Government in law reform. The right hon. and learned Gentleman protests too much. In law reform it matters as much how one does it as what one does. One matter which is very much concerning many hon. and right hon. and learned Members is the manner in which the law is being altered, and in which we have before us time after time piecemeal legislation which is rendering the task of those who have to advise many citizens who get involved in questions of law an almost impossible one. This is another measure which alters the law.

The Attorney-General: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me, at any rate to this extent, that no Parliament has had quite so much assistance from expert legal bodies outside Parliament as this Parliament has? In this respect, I think that we are very fortunate. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will join me in expressing gratitude to those who make our work much easier than probably any of our predecessors found this work.

Sir P. Rawlinson: I readily join in that tribute. However, there comes a time when the House should pause and consider the manner in which we are making law by reference. We are continually engaged in lawmaking by referring to previous Acts. For instance, Clause 26(2) says:
Except where the context otherwise requires"—
that is, the exception—
any reference in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended, extended or applied by or under any other enactment, including this Act.
I, too, pay tribute to the assistance which we are getting, but this is a problem which affects the whole system of lawmaking.
In considering the Bill I bear in mind, as I think many right hon. and hon.

Members will, that it is entitled "Family Law Reform Bill". I am a little uncertain as to why it is so entitled. It deals with three separate subjects: it is an amalgam of the Latey, the Russell, and the Law Commission Reports. I do not know whether there will be controversy on all parts of the Bill. There may be on one part and not on others. There will certainly be controversy about the manner in which these changes are sought to be effective.
The Divorce Reform Bill is at present in Standing Committee. That is a Private Member's Bill, similar to one which it was sought to get through last Session. It is a Bill which will affect many thousands of citizens and their families.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Sir P. Rawlinson: It is impossible, Sir, to consider this Bill in context and decide whether we approve of it without examining to a certain extent what is the present state of family law.
The Divorce Reform Bill seeks to alter one aspect of it. The Matrimonial Property Bill—another Private Member's Bill—seeks to alter another aspect. Both the Government and the Law Commission have announced that the whole question of the jurisdictional division of family law matters in the High Court is being considered.

Mr. David Weitzman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that we should wait for years before making this reform?

Sir P. Rawlinson: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman might have the courtesy to wait and hear what I have to say; it might help him a little. I am saying that this is the context in which any sensible person will consider this Bill.
Part I affects the age of what was previously called an infant, now to be called a minor. It reduces that age from 21 to 18. This must be seen in the context that the Representation of the People's Act has reduced the voting age to 18. Given that context, it will be difficult for many persons whatever their views may be, to object to this provision.
In the context of the present law, if we are giving to these persons various


rights, if they be rights—they may be disadvantages—are we willing for them to accept the responsibilities which they will have if adulthood comes at 18? Let us consider the legal consequences in the context of the Bill and by examining the Bill as lawmakers who have a responsibility to enact sensible law which can be implemented and be understood by the citizens and by those who must advise them when they come into contact with legal problems. For instance, in criminal law special provisions apply to young persons aged between 18 and 21. There are restrictions as to the imposition of imprisonment on young persons up to 21.
Clause 20 will effect an important alteration. If we think that minors or infants should properly be released from their responsibilities and restraints at 18, why should they not accept the consequences?
It is such considerations as these which cause me to be concerned about the Bill's introduction at this time. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) asks whether we must postpone everything. He said: because it is a good thing, must we postpone it? There may come a time when we shall have to do so. Until we have a system for properly codifying the law and putting the whole of the law with regard to young persons and the family into a sensible shape so that it can be understood it may be wiser, if there is not pressing urgency, to delay its introduction.

Mr. Leo Abse: Is not what we are seeking to do today on the law of illegitimacy to undo some of the things done in the Statute of Merton of 1236? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that even somebody on his side can agree that we are not being particularly precipitate in making these changes today?

Sir P. Rawlinson: That was a particularly offensive intervention by the hon. Gentleman, who will try, as ever, deliberately to distort or to misunderstand any argument which is being advanced. He had better understand what I am saying—that we as Parliamentarians should consider carefully before we bring the

whole of the law into total disrepute by enacting law which is not understandable or acceptable.
This process started because of certain desires to get pieces of legislation through. Unlike the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), I am not dealing with this matter particularly on a party basis. This started by the Government's desire to get such matters as Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax through in one Measure at one time without any regard to the strength with which the form of the legislation could be criticised. Other examples are the Land Commission Act and various Acts dealing with property law, as well as Acts dealing with parts of the criminal law.
Though there may be parts in this Bill which will be approved without controversy and which some of us accept wholly, I nevertheless utter this caveat before taking the Bill straight away to look at it in the context in which it is presented. I am provoked all the more into doing this by the Attorney-General's reference to the Government's impressive record in law reform. The major task for anyone who seeks to have an impressive record in law reform is to convince the citizens that we can afford a proper form of redress of grievances in which the citizen comes up against the State.

Mr. Weitzman: The Government appointed three Committees, which spent a considerable time going into the three problems which are dealt with in the Bill. Those Committees submitted Reports. The Government are now implementing recommendations of those Committees. Is that wrong? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that we should wait until a future date before implementing those recommendations?

Sir P. Rawlinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman can have his little party piece if he wants to. I agree that it was an excellent thing to set up the Law Commission. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that I knew and worked with the Lord Chancellor for many years before he was appointed to that high office and I have sympathy with many of his aims.
The Law Commission is dealing with the whole subject of family law. Is there this tremendous urgency for us to push


ahead with these pieces of piecemeal legislation which are being thrust before us? Would it not have been better to hasten a little more slowly? I know that the hon. Member for Pontypool will go back hundreds of years, even to the Statute of Merton. I am concerned not only as a lawyer, but as a Member, about the reputation of the House and the state of the law. Though some people such as the hon. Member for Pontypool are able to find their way through the law with the greatest of ease, the rest of us find it very difficult.
Part I of the Bill has been introduced under the Latey Report. It is introduced against certain illogicalities. It makes the teenager of 18 responsible for his debts. It therefore hardens the position against him, and it may be right that it should. It is said that he is more mature and, therefore, more responsible. In various circumstances, however, we do not accept that all along the line. We do not accept it, for instance, in the Finance Bill, 1968, by which the income of an infant who is 18 and under 21 is amalgamated with the parents' income, and is liable to the highest rate of the parents' tax.
The best possible hint was given by the Chief Secretary that the law should be changed in 1969. The Lord Chancellor made a similar comment in another place when dealing with this matter. This merely demonstrates that because no Chancellor can anticipate what he is going to put into his Budget, this piece of law-making which people think to be sensible has to wait and we have this untidy position for a matter of a few months.
We must also see the position that we are getting into if we consider Sections 364 and 397 of the Income Tax Act 1952. The Bill does not take into account, as the Attorney-General will agree, and as the Latey Report recommended, that the parents' responsibility for the tax of a defaulting child, though adult and over 18, is wholly unfair. What we are saying here is that a minor now earns so much more money and that, therefore, he should be able to enter into a contractual relationship and should be on his own feet. Yet at the same time we maintain the situation whereby the parent has this responsibility. This is another indication of slovenly law-making.
I do not know whether this matter has been closely considered by the Government but, as the Attorney-General will appreciate, wills usually contain a contingency provision in respect of reaching the requisite age. The age being 21 and the interest falling to the beneficiary at that age, when the age of adulthood is reached there is no contingency to prevent a person selling that reversionary interest, because 21 is the age of adulthood and is the age of vesting. Now it is proposed that this can happen between 18 and 21, against the wishes of the trustee and the testator.
Although I accept Part I as meeting to some extent the requirements of modern conditions, there are matters which will have to be looked at with great care. Otherwise, we shall find that there are situations which have not been considered and that this Measure has not been carefully dovetailed into the present circumstances.
I listened with interest to hear what the Attorney-General would say about Clause 2 and the marriage age of 20. If this age remains at 20 as opposed to 18, I think there will need to be considerable provisions made with regard to sanctions and the wardship of court.
Now I turn to Part II and the Russell Report with its humane objects. As the Attorney-General will appreciate, unlike foreign systems of law, our law of inheritance bases itself on the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938 and our law on intestacy is based on the Intestates Estates Act, 1952. The object of those Acts was to provide to a spouse or a child relief which the testator refused to give or under the 1952 Act because he failed to make a will.
The meaning of the words "child" and "nephew"—I am not dealing with the merits; I am dealing with how the principle is affected in the Bill—is such that under the present law gifts to illegitimate children conceived after the testator's death are void. Therefore, we have to consider how that is altered.
May I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that, having read the Russell Report and having at first not been in sympathy with what he said in his dissenting report, I confess, on reflection, that what he has


said is far more acceptable to me than the majority report. I feel that unless those provisions are adopted—perhaps made less generous—there will be the likelihood of spurious claims, it will be extremely difficult and costly for rightful successors to refute such claims and may lead to the likelihood of blackmailing.
Unless the father has acknowledged the illegitimate child in his lifetime, or has recorded it on the certificate of birth, or unless, as my hon. Friend suggested, there is a duly prescribed document, it will be very difficult for a family to resist what could easily be a spurious claim. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has received from the Life Offices' Association, as I have, representations expressing its concern. It has been its custom, in connection with these small estates, to pay out advances to the families.
If the Association now has to wait to see whether there are to be any claims by an illegitimate child, or by someone who claims to be a child, that puts it at risk and produces difficulties which may prevent it from making advances, as it has done in the past, to small families who are perhaps much in need of the money. This must be considered. We may all pay tribute to the intention of this provision, but, as I said before, how it is carried out matters. Clause 14 needs either to be amended or to be removed.
I turn to Part III, under the Law Commission Report, relating to blood tests. This would appear to be, and is regarded by most people, as something which would be most acceptable in assisting in the decision as to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child. But it affects the rights of the individual. The Attorney-General said that there is really no sanction, but, of course, the inference that can be drawn by the refusal is really the sanction. There are people with conscientious objections to that sort of thing. It has been so in the past in other matters, and it remains so now. We have to decide where the balance of advantage lies in relation to effectiveness in resolving a particular dispute and the right of an individual to resist and reject certain procedures.
In my view, these are sensible provisions which will be of assistance, and

they weight the balance in favour of effectiveness in resolving a dispute as against what one must accept as conscientious objections. The court must—I hope that it will—reasonably take into account that there are many people who have such objections.
Perhaps my views on the detailed provisions of the Bill have to some extent been sidetracked, as it were, by my introductory observations expressing the concern which I feel both as a lawyer and, more important, as a Member of Parliament responsible for the making of law, but I hope that the warning which I sounded has not altogether concealed from the House the approval which I feel for some of the changes which are made. On the three main matters to which I have referred, my objection is to the manner in which the changes are made. In that sense, therefore, I welcome the Bill, altough there is much in its separate provisions which I shall wish to amend.
My final word is to repeat the warning. I hope that the House will think carefully about the present state of the law and the manner in which we, as a law-making body, are dealing with it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) usually engages the House with the grace with which he presents his case. Usually, his elegance of expression and the manner in which he contributes are matched only by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but today he has fallen far short of his accustomed style. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to put in dispute a Measure which is throughout informed with compassion and understanding, and I regret that he has used this occasion to controvert the reasonable presentation of the case by the Attorney-General.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that what he objects to in the Bill is not so much its content, but the manner of its making. For my part, I could hardly think of another Bill which had so enlisted the aid of sections of the community outside the House in drafting its provisions. I regard it as a model in many ways of how a Bill should come before the House. Instead of having


before it a Bill produced by party caucuses or by legalistic lawyers, the House now has a Bill which, as a result of a sensible decision to draw upon thinking outside itself, reaches us in admirable form.
The members of the Russell Committee and the Latey Committee and the Law Commissioners, people from many disciplines and with wide knowledge, have contributed greatly in the preparation of the Bill, giving us the advantage of expertise which we do not have here. If ever there was a Measure coming before the House in which we have had the benefit of participation by disciplines outside Parliament, this is it.
It was churlish of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom not to pay greater tribute to every member of those outside bodies. It was churlish of him not to acknowledge the work of the Law Commissioners who, when the matter was referred to them, ably and speedily presented us with their conclusions and with the draft of the Bill in embryo.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is guilty of a little hyperbole in praising the Bill so unreservedly. It has some good features, but there are some grave omissions, particularly with regard to illegitimate children. The Bill improves their position, but it does not, for example, provide any means by which a father can recognise an established legal relationship with his illegitimate child. It is not such a wonderful Bill as the hon. Gentleman suggests, although it is a useful Measure.

Mr. Abse: I shall come to that point, which the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise. For his part, he should note that his own Front Bench suggests not that we should assimilate law reform research as far as we have gone and remedy at least some of the troubles but we should postpone action and legislation to the indefinite future.
That is something which those of us who know how changes can be brought through the House cannot accept. So often, against the sort of conservatism which the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom has expressed, we have to proceed by gradually eroding the prejudices of the community so that we may through legislation educate the

public to accept what we believe to be principles corresponding with social realities.

Sir P. Rawlinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not doing it purposely, but he is misrepresenting what I said. I thought that I had made clear to the House, if not to him, that it is the manner of effecting changes or of making law which cause me concern, not the particular changes proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Abse: It is the manner in which the Bill has come to the House, after having engaged the attention of wide sections of the community outside in consideration of the problems raised, which I so much approve. I regard it as a highly desirable way to reach such conclusions.
The Bill is a welcome advance. It frees us from some of the most ugly, unjustified and punitive attitudes which are at present embodied in the law, particularly relating to illegitimacy. The Attorney-General is right to claim that we are, literally, freeing ourselves from the incubus of feudalism which for so long has borne upon certain parts of our family law. He rightly pointed out that the age of majority was determined by the age when a man could wear heavy armour and carry a lance.
But that is not the only way in which the Bill makes changes. It frees us from the branding of the bastard which took place seven centuries ago, when the stubborn barons refused to countenance any change in the status of the illegitimate. When the Statute of Merton was passed, so that nothing should be done about the status of the illegitimate the barons roared out, "Nolumus mutare Angliœ leges" —we will not change the laws of England. Today, the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom has echoed that cry. The cynics who, too often, denigrate Parliament's zeal for reform should note that the Bill is further evidence of dramatic changes which are being made in social reform, and are being made by our Labour Government.
The old linking of the age of majority with a particular capacity to take part in battle underlines some of the techniques which were adopted by the elders of society to contain the disturbing assertions of manhood by their young men.


Since the last quarter of the 18th century the intervals between wars fought by European nations or the United States have been remarkably constant, ranging from 18 to 24 years, and averaging 19½ years, just about the time required for a generation born during or just after the last war to reach manhood. The classical method hitherto of releasing the inter-group tensions prompted by the clamorous young men was to send them off to wars for, at the best, initiation, or, at the worst, death.
This ploy will clearly no longer work; it will no longer save the old men from the challenge of the young now that an H-bomb war would wipe out the old and young with the most inconsiderate lack of discrimination. There is no Empire, and hence there are no natives on whom young men can be unleashed. Therefore, the old have to find a more rational way of coming to terms with the young men.
One of them is to acknowledge the reality that they have attained manhood, to welcome them into the community as adults, as the Bill does. But, clearly, for the hereditary peers, just as for their ancestor barons in 1236, these changes are too much. It was the vote of the hereditary peers that wrenched from the Bill the proposition that young people may marry without their parents' consent at 18. If it were not for the hereditary peers' vote against the proposition, which I am pleased to learn the Government intend to put back in Committee, the vote would have been derisory. Doubtless, the peers are concerned about their precious titles and perhaps their landed estates, and want to determine what girls should marry their well-endowed sons.
But life is lived very differently in my South Wales valley. My Cwmbran Council, long before the Government appointed the Latey Committee, pressed me to raise, as I did, the anomalous position of the large number of married young citizens of 18 and 19 able to afford and wanting to buy houses but, because they were under 21, barred from obtaining local authority mortgages. The fact is that our much maligned and ever so cool young people have a veritable passion for domesticity.
Marriage has rarely been so popular amongst the young, and it is particularly popular among the 4,300,000 young men

and women under 21 who are living away from home. Unlike many of the scions of the inherited peerage, they are supporting themselves. Indeed, 42 per cent. of all the women who marry in England and Wales marry under 21. Despite this huge figure of early marriage, only 600 cases came to the courts as a result of dispute with parents last year, and in 350 of them the courts decided that the young were wiser than the parents and gave consent.
I can think of no more bizarre proposal than that offered to us today by the other place. The Lords are inviting us to give an unfettered right to the under-21s to buy a house. They are suggesting that there should be an unfettered right to obtain a mortgage and to enter into hire-purchase agreements to buy furniture, beds and bedding, but wish to refuse the self-same people the right to marry.
As an old-fashioned, middle-aged man, I am shocked by these immoral and unexpected proposals, which seem to have emanated from Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Baroness Summerskill, and which are self-evidently a deliberate incitement to young people to live in sin. I was told by the late Rev. Llewellyn Williams, when I first came to the House, that the only Motion that would gain support from every section of the House was one directed unequivocally against sin. I hope that when it deals in Committee with the question of the age of consent the House will not depart from its traditional unanimity on that subject.
Apart from that blemish, which can be remedied, there are other flaws in the Bill, which can also be remedied. They are perhaps more noticeable in this Bill, precisely because so much of it is beyond criticism. In a Bill that wipes out so many of the disabilities of the illegitimate, and some of the handicaps suffered by the unmarried mother when seeking to prove paternity, it is unfortunate that all the legal obstacles still in the way, apart from blood tests, have not been finally resolved.
To that extent, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Epsom. But if he levels reproach at us for that sort of omission he should also level it at his colleague on the Front Bench, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), with whom I was glad to be associated


not so long ago in another piecemeal reform which at least helped to take away some of the difficulties suffered in the matrimonial courts by unmarried mothers who could not receive more than 50s. in respect of their children. But why are we now dealing with the blood tests in affiliation proceedings and not with all the other notorious difficulties to be found in the Affiliation Proceedings Act? Is it not time to deal with the time limit of 12 months in which proceedings have to be started, and should we not deal with it in the Bill?
That is an unreasonable period, placing as it does the necessity for decision on a woman when she may be ill-fitted to reach a sound decision as to the best interests of herself and the child. The fact, too, that the father must be resident in this country for an order to be made against him takes little account of the reality of modern life.
There is no procedure for the registration of voluntary agreements between unmarried parents dealing with the maintenance of their child. The wretched woman has no alternative but to take the sometimes equally unhappy man to the magistrates' court, if she is to have the benefit of an affiliation order. As the Chairman of the Law Commissioners has said, it is a pity that affiliation proceedings should carry with them the atmosphere of crime and the criminal courts. There is so much that could sensibly have been done, in addition to dealing with the question of the blood test, valuable as that is, and I am bound to regret that it has not. It is a pity that we have not altered the law that neither lump sums may be made nor settlements made.
But beyond maintenance and property there must loom the whole problem of status. I do not know what society gains by branding children as illegitimate. The whole question of the status of the illegitimate child is at present under study by the Society of Public Teachers of Law, as a result of the invitation of the Law Commissioners. I trust that it will not be long before we can have another Bill embodying the human and civilised proposals that I hope will emerge from that study.
This is a time of a rising incidence of abortions among unmarried mothers, to which the hon. Member for Chelmsford

has rightly drawn attention. The consequently clogged gynaecological waiting lists of our hospitals are causing widespread concern. The civilised reaction to this state of affairs is to demand the legal and social changes which would encourage the unmarried mother to keep and not to destroy her child. There is no more vulgar error than to imagine that all unmarried mothers have children by mistake. Every social worker knows that many unmarried mothers have their children, wanting to give and to receive the love denied them in their own home situations. To destroy the unborn child, in so many cases, is to prompt the unmarried mother's half-conscious yearning to lead to yet another conception.
The long-delayed changes in the Bill, and the fact that even with these changes which are being made we still have not come to the end of the road of needed legal changes in our laws of illegitimacy, shows how far we still are away from required changes in our social attitudes.

Dame Joan Vickers: The hon. Member has mentioned unmarried mothers, saying that it is very wrong to blame them for abortions, but can he say what proportion of married women have abortions?

Mr. Abse: From figures given in the Press, and in today's Daily Mail, it is quite clear that it is a disproportionate number of unmarried mothers who are now receiving abortions and it is no use retreating from the situation. We should acknowledge that the social attitudes of the community are such that too many of the unmarried mothers are turning more to abortion than to maintaining their children.
The punitive community should stop dumping the pregnant single girl on to the overstrained health services. The need is for the housing authorities and our social insurance schemes to enable the unmarried mother to keep her child, as she is able to do in countries like Denmark. Then doctors would be able to get along with their proper function of receiving children into this world and not sending them to the next.
So far as the Bill goes—and it goes a very long way—it is excellent. It shows that the Government are certainly not prepared to allow the dust to gather


upon the work done by able committees. It shows the Government's insight and understanding of problems which have been neglected for centuries, and by recent Governments, who have persistently neglected them. The speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Epsom was one which gave a clear declaration to the lawyers and social workers throughout the country that all that they can expect, if ever we have a Conservative Government, is yet more delay in social reform.

4.53 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse) condemned the conservatism of the mediaeval barons. I think that he might remember that it was their obduracy which led to the best and freest system of law and government which the world has ever seen.
The changes proposed by the Bill are due to the changes in the social and economic structure of our people. Changes in family law are necessary, and I am glad that the Government have seen fit to introduce a Bill in this connection, but I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) that the Bill is incomplete. In some respects it is clumsy, and indeed, dangerous.
What astonishes me is that the Government have seen fit to introduce a Bill dealing with these particular subjects and, at the same time, allow legislation dealing with the far more important question of divorce to be conducted by a private Member. It is that which seems to me to be wrong about the Government's attitude to this matter—to be wrong and to be lacking in courage.
I was thinking that when, 45 years ago, I first became a Member of the House, the structure of our society was somewhat different from what it is today. A relatively small number of rich and well-educated men controlled the great mass of manual and clerical workers. Now, in 1969, there is a far wider distribution of ownership and education. Those who own, those who manage, and those who work, whether manually or otherwise, enjoy standards of living which are much closer together than they were 45 years ago.
It is that change which has led to such practical results among them, as that, in the first place, our young people have much greater independence. They are better off, and that enables them to be much freer. Secondly, many more people are able during their lives to make some accumulation of wealth. I do not mean great fortunes, but at least they buy houses of their own and are able to leave some invested capital. It is these results which have made changes proposed in the Bill necessary.
I have no objection at all to any of the main proposals contained in the Bill. As for Part I, I find in my own constituency, and I think that it is true everywhere, that the vast majority of young people, of both sexes, are earning their own livings and often living away from their parents, and many of them hold responsible positions. It is ridiculous that those people should not be responsible for their debts and their contracts. I personally would go somewhat further than the Bill goes. I was glad to hear what the Attorney-General said about Clause 2. On that I, personally, would support him. I think that the restriction against marriage is not right, but I am also quite certain that freedom in that respect must be accompanied by financial freedom, and I am quite certain that before the Bill is passed the Government ought to indicate their general intensions, at any rate, with regard to the taxation of minors, and as soon as possible.
I want to say something about Part II. I was a member of the Russell Committee. As I say, I am sure that there is a need for changes to be made, mainly because many people nowadays have something to leave, and this means that the kind of family in which the parents are not married and their children, therefore, are illegitimate is often nowadays what might be called relatively well off. This is a circumstance which rarely, if ever, existed half a century ago.
In particular, I welcome Clause 17. I will use the word "bastard" because it was used by the Committee and it has the great convenience of being clear when one utters it and of assistance to those who report our debates. Clause 17 enables the bastard to obtain maintenance from the estate of his deceased parent. I


welcome this reform, which is long overdue. I entirely agree with the proposal that the bastard should share in the estate of his deceased mother. The vast majority of mothers in distributing their worldly goods after their death would wish their legitimate and illegitimate children to share together; but I cannot agree that the same argument is true of the father.
Since I wrote the note of dissent to the Russell Report to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, my views are on record. This matter can be discussed in detail in Committee, but there are some broad aspects which can properly be referred to on Second Reading. The Russell Committee passed all its recommendations on the principle that an illegitimate child should have the same rights as a legitimate child. The Committee fully acknowledged the practical difficulties to which this would give rise.
In discussing whether there should be some limitation on the power of the bastard to claim from his father, paragraph 39 of the Russell Report says this:
We reject in principle the suggestion that succession should be limited to cases where there has been voluntary recognition whether formal or informal: though we recognise that the result of our views later expressed may be, in fact, to exclude nearly all other cases.
In other words, a bastard's right in his father's estate, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and, therefore, in accordance with the proposals in the Bill, will be very far short of genuine equality as between his parents. The Russell Committee and those who support its views are salving their consciences towards bastards by inflicting distress and probably expense on legitimate relations.
When a child is a member of what can conveniently be called an illegitimate family, that is to stay, a stable union, where the parents are not married, I entirely agree with what is proposed in the Bill. There is no difficulty of proof; it can be shown that the child is living with both his parents, and there would be no repercussion on a legitimate family. If either the father or the mother subsequently marries, the earlier conduct of that parent will be generally well known to the subsequent spouse.
Similarly, when the father of a bastard has given open recognition to his child, there is no difficulty of proof and no danger of subsequent repercussion. But with bastards who are not members of a stable illegitimate family the difficulty of proof will be immense and opportunities for legal blackmail will occur.
Those who have studied this question will know that an affiliation application may be made by a woman already pregnant who thereupon seduces the best-off man she can find with a view to making a claim against him. Again, an entirely promiscuous woman will often choose to make a claim against the best of the men with whom she has been living. Cases of this sort must be borne in mind.
When a claim for maintenance is made, either under an affiliation order or under Clause 17, the difficulty of proof is not so great, because the claim for maintenance must be made within a relatively short time; indeed, if it were not, it could hardly succeed.
Here we are dealing with a totally different case. The father of a legitimate child is usually a young man, probably between 20 and 25 years of age at the most. The present expectation of life is about 70 years, so that the average lapse of time between the birth of the child and the possibility of its making a claim under Clause 13 of the Bill will be nearly 50 years. That is the difficulty which the Bill creates and which we are proposing to throw into the lap of the courts for them to work out the rules for dealing with it.
It may be said that a man should pay for his wild oats; but it is not the man who will pay for his wild oats, it is the man's widow and his legitimate children. It may be that hon. Members wish that to be done; but the man is not being made to pay; he must be dead before a claim can be made against his estate. That is why, on practical grounds, the proposal is wrong.

Mr. Abse: Would not some of the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions be mitigated by a procedure of registration of recognition, something other than is obtained in the affiliation case which, as the hon. Member will know, affects only a small proportion of illegitimate children?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I could not agree more strongly with what the hon. Member has said. If he will do me the honour of reading my minority report, he will see that that is precisely what I suggested. The majority of the Russell Committee are doing lip-service to something which is called equality, but the probability is that the courts, after a great deal of heart burning and litigation will arrive at this result, and, therefore, I think that this part of the Bill ought to be amended.
There is a difficult moral problem as well as the practical one. On the one hand, we all have sympathy with the bastard. Whoever may be guilty, certainly he cannot be. On the other hand, no one would be prepared to say that there is not a need to sustain the principle of the legitimate family. It is the very basis of our civilisation.
One can fulfil one's feelings about the first by abolishing illegitimacy. I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman did not come near to saying that in his speech—

Mr. Abse: Quite right.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If that is done, one abolishes legitimacy at the same time and, therefore, undermines the very basis of the legitimate family.
This case does not arise where there are no children, by definition, and, if it is made no longer worth while marrying because nothing is gained from it, I think that there will be a lot of people who will adopt that attitude. From some of the divorce figures and other matters now appearing, there is a tendency for people to feel that way even now, and that is why I say that some of the provisions in the Bill are dangerous. By that, I do not mean in the short-term. The Bill will not upset the country in a few months or a few years. Its ill-effects will be felt 50 and 100 years ahead. I think that this House has a duty to consider that point.
This country is not unique in confronting these problems. One of the matters which the Russell Committee considered was what has been done in other countries. Some of them are more liberal-minded than we are. We took evidence from all that we could and, if hon. Members look at Appendix IV of our Report, they will see that in every case in which

a bastard is entitled to some share in his father's estate, the condition is laid down that the father has recognised the bastard. I believe that we shall be driven to that, either by an uncomfortable process of litigation, or by an Amendment of the Bill, or by some other means if the Bill goes through as it is drafted at present. Before it is passed, I hope that the Government will agree to an Amendment.
Clauses 14 and 15 make a gift contained in a will or deed to a child, either of the giver or of some other person, include an illegitimate child or someone who is related through an illegitimate link. This is contrary to the recommendation of the Russell Committee. This is not a very important point, as a general question. It is a mere matter of construction, and convenience probably should prevail. As the Government have framed this proposal, if property is left for life to the child of a testator or some other donor and the recipient of the gift has no children to succeed him, assuming that the meaning of "child" is altered as the Government propose, the result will be that he need only go out and get an illegitimate child in order to find an heir to the property that he has enjoyed during his life. That does not seem to be a very moral proposal, on the face of it, and I can imagine that it might lead to worse than that.
Under Clause 25(2) a father and mother together can re-register a child. I cannot see that it would be easy to disprove that a person who claimed himself to be the father of an illegitimate child was not the father. Reregistration would open the door to the arrival of a little heir without any difficulty. The individuals concerned would be tempted to make a somewhat fraudulent bargain which, although it would be illegal, would be almost impossible to get at under the law as it now stands.
I hope that the Government will look at this aspect of the matter. It would be better if these provisions were removed. Certainly, I do not wish to encourage immorality or fraud, and I fear that that is what the Government are tending to do in this connection.
I hope that the Bill will be amended as I suggest and, with those reservations, I wish it a swift passage through the House.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) suggested that fraud or immorality may arise from the Bill. However, in my view, the terms of the Bill are the very negation of that view. They attempt to get rid of the fraud which arises so often in affiliation proceedings by allowing the court to order a blood test. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said earlier, the provisions of the Bill reduce the possibilities of immorality.
I welcome the Bill but, at the same time, I have a lot of sympathy with the views of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) about (he form of it. I think that he overstated his case and was far more aggressive on a party political basis than one is accustomed to hearing him, especially in a legal debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool was equally aggressive in defending this three-in-one Bill.
In winding up the debate in another place, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor admitted:
This is not the right way to draft legislation, but those who manage our Parliamentary time say that three Bills always take up more time than one and, therefore, if you want to get your thing in you have to put three in one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th November, 1968; Vol. 297, c. 1194.]
I do not think that we ought to put three Bills into one, which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I do not think that he was attacking any of the Bill's principles. He was attacking its form—

The Attorney-General: I thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) was also suggesting that there should be a postponement of partial measures of reform in family law until the whole position is codified. In my view, that would substitute altogether the good for the best. That is the part of his proposition which I find unacceptable.

Mr. Oakes: I was about to come on to that because I, too, find it quite unacceptable. However, there is no reason for not bringing in three little Bills, each

of them carrying out the intention of the three parts of the Bill, rather than lumping them together in this Family Law Reform Bill.
I wish that we had a real Bill dealing with all the matters about which we have heard today, including illegitimate persons, marriage, families, maintenance and the collection of maintenance. Some day, I hope that we shall have a Bill setting up a family court, so taking away the stigma of criminal proceedings which still attaches itself to matrimonial and affiliation proceedings. Practising in the courts, I have heard many times the chairman of a bench of magistrates say in affiliation proceedings, "We find you guilty." But there is no questtion of guilt or innocence involved in civil proceedings where a mother brings the putative father to court.
I welcome very much what my right hon. and learned Friend said about Clause 2, that we will endeavour in Committee to set aside the ridiculous proposition put before us by the other place. The other place is often unpredictable—that is one of the alluring things about it—but when it suggests, as it does in Clause 2, that the age of marriage shall be difference from the age of majority generally, it is behaving not with unpredicta bility, but like an eccentric recluse.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is is not equal criticism of this House that we are too predictable?

Mr. Oakes: That may well be. The other place has said that a person reaches full age and full legal capacity at 18. This House has said that a person shall have full citizenship at 18 in a separate Bill. In Committee, the hereditary peers, to whom my hon. Friend referred, descended upon the other place in droves and altered that provision concerning marriage, so that a person should not be allowed to marry without parental consent until the age of 20. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend or anyone in this House can think of any country in the world that advances the proposition that a citizen of full age and of full legal capacity should not have the right to marry without consent. That is the hotchpotch that the other place made of Clause 2 by altering the age from 18 to 20.
A lot of people are involved. By that Amendment I calculate, from the figures given by my noble Friend Lord Wells-Pestell in the other place, that no less than 88,961 women and 30,252 men, a total of 119,213, of the ages of 18 and 19 were married in 1966. That is a great number of people of those two ages—equal to the population of a very large town—getting married in one year. Yet the other place wishes to set back the law and say that they shall not marry without parental consent.
I ask the House to consider another proposition which we may be neglecting: whether a person under the age of 18 should be able to marry at all, with or without the consent of the parents. We say that a man must be able to support his wife and family, so we will give him the legal capacity to buy a home, which more and more young people wish to do—and the Latey Report states that these young people honour their financial obligations better than older people. We also say that young people between the ages of 16 and 18 can marry with the parents' consent, even though they cannot go into a public house to buy half a pint of beer. I wonder whether it would be more advisable to have a uniform age of marriage, namely, 18 years of age. Below that age 25,000 people got married in 1966.
According to the Latey Report, the vast majority of those young people got married at the age of 16 or early 17 because the girl was pregnant. I think that the House will agree that that is the worst possible reason, at that age, for two people to get married. I suggest that if the girl is having a baby she should have it and wait until she is 18 years of age, by which time the two young people concerned are better able to decide whether they wish to marry than in the emotional stress of what in other respects we consider a child, and what we consider in the Children and Young Persons Act to be a child—someone under 18 years of age. I think that we should seriously consider permitting such young people to marry at all.

Mr. Abse: I am rather shocked by my hon. Friend's proposition. Surely he appreciates that every child should, if possible, have two married parents. In

the early formative years of life this is very important. Is my hon. Friend not considering it a little abstractedly?

Mr. Oakes: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the marriages of a large number of young people who marry at 16 and 17 years of age end in divorce and tragedy. That is only the tip of the iceberg. They are the ones who actually go to court. But there may be many other broken marriages that really just hang together. I put the proposition to the House that if we are to be logical in considering reducing the age of marriage without parental consent from 21 to 18, we should also consider whether we will permit to be married people whom we will not allow to go into a public house to buy a drink.
I welcome most warmly the second part of the Bill concerning illegitimacy. The hypocrisy with which this country, this House and the law of this land has regarded illegitimacy over the centuries is astounding. We have a completely dual standard. Little opprobrium rests upon the head of the man. That is understandable, because even in the Bill we do not say that the bastard child is his. He still has no rights over the child, as my hon. Friend pointed out. However, we heap opprobrium upon the girl's head, although she is only one of two parties. In addition, the law over the centuries has done the unforgivably cruel thing of laying opprobrium on the innocent child of the union, although the child clearly could not be responsible for being born. The Bill attempts to redress the balance a little in favour of the illegitimate child. I do not like using the expression "illegitimate child". The hon. Member for Hendon, South used the word "bastard", which is a much better expression. How can a child, a being, be illegitimate, unlawful, as the term implies?
I have a minor criticism of the provisions of Clauses 4 and 5 and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will consider it when he replies to the debate. In Clause 4(2) we see that a minor, who has been the subject of custody proceedings under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, can take his father, or one party of the marriage, to court provided that his parents are not residing together. I do not like the phrase "not residing together". I do not know what it means. Many separated families in this country


live in the same house. Residing together and living together as man and wife can mean two very different things. Perhaps in Committee we will have a close look at the words "residing together".
The legitimate child has that indisputable right. But the illegitimate child, in Clause 5(2), appears to have that right only if his mother is dead, of unsound mind, or in prison. If she does not come under any of those categories, there is a distinction between the legitimate and the illegitimate child. There may be a reason for this. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will explain it to me and to the House at the conclusion of the debate.
Concerning blood tests in bastardy proceedings, I think that the House should unreservedly welcome this proposal. This protects the putative father just as much as it is of value to the mother. It is shameful that a man, disputing the proceedings, who asks for a blood test can be denied a blood test because the mother refuses to allow one on the child. The mother who was doubtful about the parenthood of the child would be the very one to refuse a blood test in that child's case. Now the court can order a blood test. I think that that is a wise provision which will prevent a great deal of injustice. It should have been done a long time ago in affiliation proceedings.
This is a good Bill, even though it is a little cramped, dealing as it does with three subjects in one Measure which I do not particularly like. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope, too, that, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, we shall restore the sense of the original Bill to make 18 the age for marriage without consent, just as it is the age for legal capacity in other respects.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I welcome the Bill. I should not have voted, and did not vote, for bringing the voting age down from 21 to 18, but now that it has come down for voting I see no reason why it should not come down for other legal obligations.
I am sorry that the Government did not decide to bring in three small Bills. Had they done so, they would not have

had the face to bring in a second Bill which dealt with illegitimacy in such a short Measure as this, and it is to this part of the Bill that I wish to address my remarks.
I want to follow some of the thoughts put before the House by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), because I agree with him that we need a real family law Bill dealing with illegitimacy. We in this House need to have another full look at the whole problem of the illegitimate child. I welcome the steps taken in the Bill, but I am disappointed that it does not go anything like far enough.
Anybody who has been to a magistrates' court and seen affiliation proceedings must realise what a game they are. The legal obstacles have been enumerated by the hon. Member for Pontypool, and I shall not go over them again. They are there because we have inherited a tradition that it is not a great sin for a boy to create a child but for a girl to do this is something wrong and wicked. It has always been made difficult to bring the father to book, and it is still difficult to do so in the courts today. I think that it is time we had a serious look at the legal obstacles which stand in the way of proving paternity, but that is not the real point that I wish to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hen-don, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that some hon. Members might want to abolish illegitimacy. I wish that we could. That is exactly what I should like to do. I do not for a moment believe that by abolishing illegitimacy we shall undermine marriage in the slightest. I do not believe that people who are married and have happy homes will find that their homes and their marriages are the slightest bit undermined if we take away this abominable stigma, which, as a society, we still place on people who are so unfortunate as to be born out of wedlock.
It is not just for this House to abolish that stigma. We can do something about the law, but what is required is a change in the social climate, a change in how people view these things. I am glad to say that this is coming rapidly in this country, but we, too, have our duty to do. We should make it possible for the girl who has an illegitimate child easily to bring up that child, and to have a


real status. There should be no stigma attaching to her. There should be no inhibitions on that child being brought up as if it were being brought up within a marriage. Until we make that change injustices are bound to continue, and I hope that we shall soon have before us a Bill to make that alteration.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if we succeeded in removing the stigma to which he referred, and also in removing the financial incentive, a large number of people would not get married? There would be no conceivable purpose for doing so, other than the purely theological.

Mr. Miscampbell: This is a matter of judgment, and my judgment is simply that that is just not right. I do not think that people would not get married. I cannot argue from instances, but I do not know that I should not have got married simply because it was possible to have a large illegitimate family, and I suspect that that goes for most people.
It is unfortunate that the theological grounds for staying married are, unfortunately, waning. We know from statistics that we are a minority Christian country. Only 10 to 12 per cent. of the people go to church. I deplore this, but I recognise it as a fact, and thus that tie is lessening, but I do not think that the practical ties, the advantages of having a stable marriage, are any less today than they have ever been, and I do not for a moment believe that they would be undermined by changing what I consider to be not only an anomaly, but a grave injustice. I am sorry that this provision is not in the Bill, but I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying that it should have been, and that I hope we shall very soon have a Bill which deals with this whole problem.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I shall not detain the House for long, because my principal interest in the Bill is in Part I, and we had an opportunity to discuss this during the debate on the Latey Committee's Report, when I made my views clear.
I thought that the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) was extraordinarily

disappointing, and I take issue with the manner and substance of what he said about the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not make clear his objections to the Bill, and I think that it behoves the principal Opposition spokesman to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—and said at some length—that the manner in which this legislation had been brought forward was in some respect faulty. It was not clear whether he thought the Bill was too wide-ranging, or not sufficiently wide-ranging, on the matters of family law with which the Bill is concerned.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman instanced the fact that the Bill does not deal with certain tax matters, despite the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had explained that these matters were proper for consideration in a Finance Bill introduced by Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also made some passing allusion to the criminal law, and seemed to imply that we should not seek to amend the family law until we took into account the possible consequences on criminal law.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Perhaps I might make my position clear. I obviously did not do so when I spoke earlier. I thought that what I was saying was that it behoved us all to look carefully at how we effected law reform and changes in the law. I referred to the fetish that we could not change even some of the financial provisions which follow from this Bill, because we have to wait for a Finance Bill.
Secondly, I though I made it clear that, with certain Amendments which other hon. Members have suggested, all three parts of the Bill were acceptable to me, but that as we were dealing with a Bill concerned with the law we should think about the way in which we are getting the law into such a mess by all this cross-reference and amendment of legislation.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not think that he has cleared up the point. I cannot believe that he is seriously arguing that we should alter the incidence of taxation within the ambit of what is clearly a law reform Bill.
Perhaps the more serious objection to his point of view arises from what he


said about the criminal law. I shall take some time over this point, because I entirely disagree with him about the manner in which the reform is being implemented. This is an absolute model of how law reform should be proceeded with. The question of criminal law was not within the remit of the Latey Committee; indeed, no recommendations were made in respect of it, for the very good reason that the Committee thought it right not to enter into this field. But it pointed out—and it should be pointed out in this debate—that the Bill deals with the law as it affects the normal, responsible young person, and not the exceptional person who runs up against society by law breaking or anti-social behaviour.
The Latey Committee—of which I had the honour and great satisfaction of being a member—recommended that the general capacity of young people to order their personal affairs should not affect the criminal or penal field because it was the irresponsible, the disturbed and the inadequate who become involved in anti-social behaviour.
It is not only undesirable; it is quite impossible to reform at one fell swoop the whole law affecting the family. It is the sort of recommendation which comes strangely from the Opposition, who formerly never proceeded in this way. They have always proceeded step by step. In this Bill there is nothing that really divides the Government and the Opposition, but the right hon. and learned Member sounded as though he was proposing something rather like the Code Napoléon. This would be wholly alien to all our traditions and practice.
I now turn to the substance of the Bill. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to say something about the progress of the Law Commission in its study of the law of contract as it affects young persons. The Latey Committee made some general recommendations in this matter but, recognising that it was not fitted for the task of making specific recommendations to deal with a peculiarly difficult field of law, it suggested that the work should be put in hand by the Law Commission. We are glad to hear that the Commission is working on this.
So long as the Infants Relief Act remains on the Statute Book the law

relating to the contractual capacity of minors—as they are now to be called—cannot be regarded as satisfactory, and it is to be hoped that this is one of those matters in respect of which the Commission will speedily bring forward a recommendation for amendment.
I do not wish to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) at great length. I take the view that in the mid-twentieth century it is quite indefensible for the child born out of wedlock to be virtually excluded from all the benefits of the parents' estate unless special provisions have been made for that child in the will. I therefore take this opportunity of welcoming that part of the Bill which seeks to amend the law and bring it into conformity with the law prevailing in Scotland.
I know that the hon. Member has already participated in our Scottish debates on this subject and has expressed a similar point of view. I know that he will not think it ungallant of me if I point out that he raised similar arguments in respect of a Bill last Session.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to introduce a Bill making legitim part of the system of law in England.

Mr. Maclennan: It would be most incautious to do so. In view of my earlier and rather inapt intervention in respect of Part III, I ought to explain at greater length my doubts about Clause 21. I realise that the discretion given to a court to take into account the failure of a person directed by that court to comply with a requirement to take a blood test is a discretion which will be exercise in a judicial fashion, but I question the wisdom of my right hon. and learned Friend, reply to my intervention, in saying that in many cases he believed that the conclusion to be drawn from a refusal to supply blood when the direction had been given would be adverse. Many people, for religious or other reasons, are reluctant to allow blood tests to be carried out, and it would be most unfortunate if, by our drafting of the Bill, we were to allow the impression to gain currency that an adverse conclusion should necessarily be drawn from such a refusal.
Perhaps the way the Bill deals with this matter cannot be improved upon; certainly where there is a conflict the balance ought to come down in favour of the direction rather than the refusal. I hope that I have made myself clear, although I fear that I may merely have made myself more obscure. A court should be most reluctant to put any weight upon the refusal of anyone to provide a blood sample. Only in the most exceptional cases, and where the evidence is fairly compelling, should weight be attached to this.
This is an important Bill, and it is in conformity with the notable record of the Government in bringing forward law reform Measures. It gives me great personal satisfaction. It must be most unusual for Members of Parliament to have the privilege of participating in a Committee which is studying a branch of the law and then of finding, within less than two years, that the Committee's recommendations are not only fully debated by the House but form the basis of legislation.
This matter has been dealt with completely and expeditiously by the Government and the Bill's provisions, especially those relating to young persons, are most timely. Nothing that has happened since the summer of 1967, when the Latey Committee reported, has diminished the urgency of recognising the capacity of the young to order their lives in matters of contract and marriage. The predicament, particularly of the young married, must increasingly give rise to concern. The difficulty, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred, of the young in acquiring a mortgage or in acquiring the property necessary to set up a home by hire purchase, and many other difficulties of this kind put an added strain upon the domestic life of young people.
The growing divorce rate among the young is a cause of great concern to many and nothing that we do should contribute to the tensions which are inevitable if the material circumstances of the young married couples are made more difficult. The Bill recognises the social facts and in some respects is more of a layman's Bill than a lawyer's Bill. However, as a lawyer, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the

Government upon this Measure and I hope that it will speedily pass into law.

5.52 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: It has been my fate recently to take part in debates on lawyers' Bills and to be the first non-lawyer to speak.
I found the Latey Report, particularly the first part, a fascinating document. Paragraph 29 said:
… wherever possible the law should be simple and clear.
That is an admirable sentiment, but it does not seem to have been translated in this Bill or in many others. One thing which is illogical is that we shall be considering the age of majority and of voting at 18 and will not allow people to enter the House until they are 21, Yet Charles James Fox came in at the age of 19. I do not understand why this should be so and perhaps it will be explained to me.
I may show myself rather "square" in this debate, because I am not sure that we are doing the right thing and would rather come down on the side of the minority Report in respect of two particular cases. In the summary on page 157, recommendation (2) says:
Parental or court consent to marry should continue to be necessary until the age of 21.
Also, I hope an amendment on the lines of recommendation (5) under the same heading will be incorporated in the Bill:
A person under the age of 21, who is able to show that a contract to which he is a party is or was harsh or oppressive, should be entitled to have the contract set aside and to further relief to such extent as the court considers just and equitable (except in the case of completed contracts for the disposition of interests in land);
This idea is supported by the Law Society and recommended in the pamphlet by the Bow Group, and is surely applicable to this Bill.
Paragraph 571 refers to the survey carried out by the Sunday Mirror, which showed that there seemed to be no real desire for this lack of parental support over their marriage. That survey, reported by Anne Allen
… shows that no less than three-quarters of young wives regret the fact that they married so young. And there is no doubting the sincerity of the 21-year-old who was 'very, very grateful' to her parents for saving her from a disastrous teenage match …


The paragraph goes on to give her views at length.
We should not be certain that we are doing the right thing, but if we are to implement this proposal I hope that we shall ensure that all young people know what will hit them. They will not find it easy to change from their present way of life to these additional responsibilities. Before the Bill is enacted, circulars should be sent to schools where young people stay until the age of 18 and to colleges and universities, stating the facts, so that they know how they will be situated in future.
There has been no demand for this change. Things were different when women fought for the vote before 1918. Today, in this quickly changing world, young people have enough to do to cope with present conditions and I am not certain that they want this changed. The suicide rate at Oxford and Cambridge is ten times the national average and that at other universities is seven times the average, which shows the strain on many people of this age group.
Paragraph 558 of the Report quotes the opinion:
There are already too many adults made ridiculous by unwelcome pandering to youth in attempts to be switched on.
I hope that we will not try to be too "switched on". Many people will still stay at school until they are 16 or 18 and will not have the same practical experience as our grandfathers and great-grandfathers had, many of whom went to work at 12 or 14 and then, for a long period, were still not considered adults. This must be considered.
As to the age of marriage, it appears that there were only 600 applications for court consent to marry, of which 350 were granted. There must have been some desirable reason for not granting the others. In view of the quotation which I gave, I should have thought that this method is probably a help to many young people. The younger marriages are three rimes more likely to break up than those in the older age group.
The Report says that, of 56 countries and States considered, only Japan and Hawaii maintain an age of majority of 20, Alaska, Kentucky and New Hampshire an age of 18, and the U.S.S.R. 18 or 17. Some States do give a woman an

age of majority rather lower than that for men. Some other countries give age majority over marriage.
The Report also sets out an opinion poll which gives a very good answer. It asked whether those interviewed considered the age of 21 to be the right age for the signing of a hire-purchase agreement, buying or selling a house and marrying without parental authority. The vast majority of the replies considered that 21 was the right age. Thus, I am not convinced that we would do young people a service by lowering the age of majority—

Mr. Abse: Is it not notorious that this poll was conducted among people who were living at home and that grave doubt has been placed against this poll, precisely because, as I said, more than 4 million young people do not live at home but are under 21 and earning their living and because none of those people were asked?

Dame Joan Vickers: The Report does not say whether that is so, and I do not know. Nor do I know how many letters the hon. Member has had about this. I have had no demand at all that the age should be lowered. I do a great deal of speaking around the country, including much among the younger age groups.
One question which has not been raised is the question of wages. If one is under 21 at present, one earns a boy's or a girl's wage, Which on average is at present £9 11s. 9d. But the wage for someone over the age of 21 is £20 6s. Id. Surely if we are to give these people full majority rights, we must give them full men's or women's wages. Perhaps the Attorney-General will deal with that point in reply.
As a member of the Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child, I welcome the provisions to help illegitimate children. I hope that in future the birth certificate will be identical for legitimate and illegitimate children. It should carry only the personal name, date of birth, place of birth and country. I suggest that legislation on the lines of the provisions of Section 19(1) and (2) of the Registration of Birth, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1965, should be implemented in the Bill, for I can see no reason why they should not tie up well with the Bill.
I understand that at present the name of the father of a person about to be married must be inserted in the register of marriages. This can cause a great deal of embarrassment, and I hope that a provision deleting this requirement will be included in the Bill, because it does not help illegitimate men or women if, on marriage, they have to supply this information. They have thus to admit that they are illegitimate, although they will be able to produce birth certificates which give no indication of that fact.
Part II of the Bill seems in favour of helping the illegitimate child to obtain his rights, whereas Part I seems against that, which is extraordinary. Clause 4(4) states,
no order shall be made under subsection (2) of this section requiring any person to pay any sum towards the maintenance or education of an illegitimate child of that person.
In all probability that means that an increasing burden will be placed on the State to undertake the maintenance or the education of such a person. I hope to see that amended in Committee, and I hope also to see Amendments to Clause 4(5) and Clause 6(6) so that all children can be dealt with under the Maintenance Orders Act, 1956. The maintenance of children while they are undergoing full-time education or training is covered in Clause 4(1) and (2). The provision made may be extended to the age of 21. I should like to see the provision extended to the age at which a boy or girl ceases full-time education or training.
I feel that a child born out of wedlock should be as much entitled to inherit as if he were a legitimate member of the family of his natural father and mother. Persons born out of wedlock should have equal rights with those born in wedlock.
Clause 13(2) gives the natural parents of an illegitimate child entitlement to succeed from his intestacy. The present wording of the Bill gives an absolute right to a parent to take on the intestacy of the child without regard to the behaviour of the parents towards the child. Clause 13(4) is not very helpful, because it means that the natural father who has denied paternity and has never supported the child financially will still be able to claim the child's property on intestacy. This also applies to the mother

who has handed her child over to a local authority.
May I comment on the provisions about blood tests? Clause 18 gives the court power to order a blood test to establish paternity, but Clause 19 provides that a blood sample shall not be taken from any person without his consent. Surely this introduces an inference of guilt? I would rather this Clause were not included in the Bill because it gives an appearance of guilt without proof.
Clause 18(1) refers to "civil proceedings". It seems that affiliation proceedings are defined as "domestic" under the Affiliation Orders Act, 1957. I feel that this relates largely to such matters as the limited publicity and reporting of domestic cases. In my view, it is held, unfortunately, that affiliation proceedings are criminal in character. Appeals under affiliation orders go to quarter sessions or to the Court of Appeal. I feel that this gives the proceedings a criminal character. What is to be the future position?
I am fascinated by the fact that in another place it was found necessary to include in Schedule I, page 20, c. 46, Section 3 of the Hypnotism Act, 1952. This provides that persons under 21 are not to be hypnotised at a public entertainment. It puzzles me how a hypnotist is to discover before he hypnotises a person that that person is under 21 years of age. I am interested to note that under this provision an entertainer, who perhaps has not been able to ascertain the age of his subject, can get into trouble, whereas the Bill does not deal with those gentlemen who often come to the door of a house selling goods on hire purchase and who hypnotise the housewife far more effectively and with more lasting damage than does a hypnotist at a public entertainment.
I am, therefore, opposed to a large part of the Bill in its effect in reducing the age of majority to 18, but the Bill could be improved if we included the safeguards in respect of contracts suggested in the minority Report. I am not at all happy that people will be able to marry at the age of 18 without parental consent, because parental consent has proved a safeguard. I hope that the Attorney-General realises that at this very difficult


period of time we are putting many additional responsibilities on young people, which I feel may be unforunate. They have plenty of time during their lives—and we have been told that we live much longer these days—to bear the burdens of the everyday world, and I should like to see them free of these burdens as long as possible.
Clearly, however, my view will not carry the day. I hope that the Attorney-General will consider some of the points which I have brought to his attention, particularly that relating to wages.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: The House will be grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) for having put forward a woman's point of view in this debate about family law reform. It would have been ironic if no views had been expressed by lady Members of the House on a subject on which the hon. Lady has a good deal of specialist knowledge.
May I try to introduce a lay point of view into this somewhat rarified debate? I understand that the Bill is consistent with other reforms passing through Parliament reducing the age of majority for voting and for other purposes from 21 to 18. On previous occasions I have expressed doubt about the process but, like the hon. Lady, I recognise that there is a consensus of opinion throughout the House that these reforms are necessary. On humanistic grounds I must welcome provisions which seek to remedy many of the disabilities which have been placed on illegitimate children. That concerns the ethical aspect of the problem.
When we consider the legal implications, we are face to face with the property aspect of the problem. The statute law of England is heavily overladen by property legislation. When the House begins to consider proposals which involve succession to property, as the Bill undoubtedly does, all the lawyers in the House and elsewhere look at them through a microscope and try to see where the snags arise.
It is on record—one of my hon. Friends referred to this in a debate some time ago—that not all illegitimate children suffer from the fact that they are illegitimate. Many illustrious people in our history—we are not ashamed of

this; it just happens to be our history—were the result of illegitimate unions. One of the later Kings of Scotland, before the Act of Union, was reputed to have sired 18 illegitimate children. There were others who are not on the record, but very generous property endowments were placed on the admitted 18 offspring as some compensation for the fact that they were illegitimate. Therefore, it is not true that illegitimacy is always a handicap, but in most cases it is. However, the House rightly concerns itself with the great stigma on those who are not born in wedlock. On that aspect, while I am content to leave my legal friends to argue the niceties of the property repercussions of the Bill—they are very important repercussions; no one can brush them under the carpet—I welcome it as a liberalising reform which will help to put illegitimate children in a stronger position vis-á-vis civil rights, property and other things.
My purpose in rising to speak was not to deal with illegitimacy, about which we could speak for a long time and on which weeks will be spent in Committee—

The Attorney-General: I hope not.

Mr. Price: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is moaning. He says that he hopes that a great deal of time will not be spent on these matters in Committee. This Bill concerns questions of property. We had an indication of what will happen in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who is legal adviser to a very noble family. He speaks with great personal knowledge of property. I do not blame him for that. He is a very acceptable Member of the House and we all listen to him with great respect when he gives us the benefit of his wisdom. He is concerned mainly with property questions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be concerned for a long time with property questions in Committee. I hope that I am not on the Committee. I ask not to be put on it because I have other things to do.
The Bill extends civil rights to people between the ages of 18 and 21. The House generally welcomes steps of this kind. We have debated the merits of


the reduction in age on the Representation of the People Bill. Those of us who were against it were outvoted. I am being a good democrat; I accept the verdict of democracy. However, I wish to draw attention not to the advantages conferred on young people by the Bill but to some of the disadvantages, which must be seriously considered.
I hope that I am right in saying that it has always been the accepted common law of England that a person under the age of majority, under 21, who is a minor or infant in law, could not make a contract which was not for his personal benefit. If he were induced at an age under 21 to enter into a contract, that contract could be set aside when he reached 21 if it were faulty and if he were legally advised to take action. The Bill gives people of 18 years of age the legal right to enter into a contract and to be bound by it.
The hon. Lady the Member for Devon- port referred in passing to hire purchase. The high-powered world of salesmanship is so highly organised by clever advertising and brain washing of all kinds that people are often induced to enter into purchases which they cannot afford. The Latey Committee made passing reference to this matter. It pointed out that young people honour their legal obligations better than older people. I do not know on what statistical evidence that statement is based. What I do know is that if we establish by law, as the Bill un doubtedly intends to do, a situation in which people of 18 years of age, whether they are married or not—it is not a question of whether they are setting up home or whether a young man is taking unto himself a wife at an early age—can enter into a contract and be bound by it and sued in the courts of non-performance of it—

Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the hazards to which members of the pubic are subjected by high-pressure salesmanship and the techniques of selling. However, would he not agree that these dangers afflict all members of society and that old ladies of 70 are as liable to be led astray as people under the age of 21 and that what we need to do is to improve our consumer protection law by such measures as the Trade Descriptions Act?

Mr. Price: I agree. But too many people are being led astray already. I do not want to add to the number. I do not want an additional group of young people to be led astray. However clever young people may be, they are most impressionable and are more likely to be "conned" by high pressure advertising than older and more mature people who know what they are being presented with.
The situation needs very careful review, for this reason—and I hope that I have the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General because what I am about to say concerns the county courts. The Latey Committee said that young people honour their debts better than older people. I do not know of any evidence on which that statement is made. But I do know that many of the hire-purchase companies which are running long lists of bad and irrecoverable debts would never dream of taking legal action against a person under 21 in the county court through their professional debt collectors. They would rather take action against the parents of the young people who had bought goods improvidently or stupidly or in ignorance of what they were doing. As a result of the Bill, the county courts may face a flood of judgment summonses seeking to recover debts from young people who should not have undertaken them. In that sense, therefore, as well as the new rights which the Bill gives, we are imposing on young people serious additional obligations. As legislators, we understand that giving a right implies a corresponding necessity to take on an obligation. The enforcement of debt collecting from young people will place a heavy additional strain on the judicature, and particularly on the county courts where judgments summonses are usually heard.

Mr. Oakes: Would not my hon. Friend agree that obligations should rest on people who buy goods? He is right that at the moment under a guarantee-ship it is poor dad who has to pay, not the black sheep.

Mr. Price: That depends on the premises of the argument. It is an impeccable piece of logic. But the Bill would be an enfranchisement not only


for young people but for hire-purchase companies, and one has to weigh one advantage against another. One does not want to extract the last drop of blood from an argument of this kind, and we can discuss the matter in Committee.
I put it to the Attorney-General that before we change the contract law so fundamentally we should consider the social implications and further protection which may be needed to prevent exploitation by clever salesmen and their agents of young people who might otherwise be landed in great difficulty. Having made what I hope was a temperate comment on the Bill, I generally welcome it for some of its forward-looking and progressive reforms needed in this modern age. But let us not forget that if we legislate on the assumption that people of very tender age are in a position to accept responsibility before they reach an age of mature judgment, we may be heading for further social trouble, and heaven knows we have enough already.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) because he has forcefully made a point which I wish to make. Some people appear to imagine that by passing the Bill the House will be bestowing a packet of unmixed blessings on young people; but that is far from the case. I cannot remember who said:
Youth is no doubt a great calamity and seems to excite the worst passions of human nature amongst those who no longer possess it.
We cannot do much about the passions but we can prevent the situation being more of a calamity than is inevitable, and that the Bill lamentably fails to do.
There is an odd characteristic which the Bill shares with another which recently came before the House. Just as there was no demand in the country for votes at 18—I think I can say that with confidence as a result of my experience in fighting a by-election only last year—there is clearly no demand for full legal rights; at the age of 18.
I need refer only to paragraph 91 of the Latey Report, which says:
Our sources of direct information from the young are these:

(1) Those who have individually written to us. They favour lowering the age to 18 in the ratio of two to one.
The significance there is not the number who wrote advocating a change. One can always get people who are steamed up and excited about an issue believing fervently in a reform. The significance is in the number who went to the trouble to write to say that they were content with things as they were. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) suggested that those who lived away from home were just as able to write to the Committee as those who were living at home, but when one adds the results of the survey commissioned by the Committee, which is dealt with on page 131 of the Report, one sees revealed that those between the ages of 16 and 24 were opposed by majorities of no less than two to one to any change in the law.

Mr. Maclennan: As to the evidence of those who were in favour of reducing the age, the hon. Member might be interested to know that the overwhelming number of those recommending a change were not people who had some theoretical interest in the problem but people who had actually come against the law as it stood and had suffered some kind of hardship.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I pay tribute to him and to the other members of the Committee for a most interesting Report, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading.
There is another point made with some force in the Report. If the people who wrote wrote because they had suffered a particular inconvenience from the present law, their evidence is surely less valuable rather than more because they have not been able to make an effective judgment as young people who came down hard on one side or the other because of their experience. If there were a great agitation for a change in the law one would have expected many more to write saying that they wanted a change and many fewer to write saying that they did not want a change.
I am sorry that the Government should be unwilling to accept the Amendment made in another place. Of course it is illogical that I, being of the opinion that it would be far better if there were


no "free marriage" below the age of 21, would be happy to compromise at the age of 20, but the strictures made by hon. Members opposite are uncalled for. They seem to assume that what an hereditary peer says is necessarily wrong. It is worth looking at the arguments made in another place to see whether they are right, rather than come to the conclusion that because an hereditary peerage voted for them they must be wrong. There is the old adage
Marry in haste and repent at leisure.
Figures show that there is more repenting after teenage marriages than after marriages later in life.
The Committee and the Government accept the usefulness of the device of parental consent. This is important because both the Committee and the Government would keep parental consent for the sake of young people anxious to marry between the ages of 16 and 18. How can it be seriously argued that it has no usefulness after the age of 18? It can be so argued only if one is convinced that someone over 18 needs no special protection because of lack of maturity.
One is almost compelled to the conclusion that the Government and the Committee have been far too anxious to achieve uniformity at almost any cost and have ignored some of the very vital evidence put before the Committee, such as that in Scotland, where parental consent is not necessary and has been wholly dispensed with, the young divorce rate is markedly higher than it is in England. I cannot believe that the difference is due merely to dark nights and lack of rival attractions north of the Border. I am convinced that a better approach would be to keep the age of majority at 21 but remove some of the disabilities which infants suffer but which may be removed without taking away from them the protection they deserve.
I say this for the following reasons. First, far from being evidence that earlier physical maturity has been accompanied by earlier psychological maturity, the divorce rate and the crime rate tend to show precisely the reverse. Secondly, our criminal law acknowledges the need for special protection for those under 21. No one has said in the House today that the Sexual Offences Act, 1967, should be

amended. The House recognised as recently as 1967, when the Bill was going through, that people under 21 needed special protection. Now we are having the argument advanced that they need no special protection and are as mature at 18 as they will ever be.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman could go on to cite with even greater effect the Children and Young Persons Act.

Mr. Waddington: I agree entirely. Our criminal law acknowledges the need for special treatment for people under 21. Nobody in the House has said that one of the consequences of a recognition that maturity arrives so much earlier today is that we do not need borstal training. It may be that 21 as the age of majority has come about as an historical accident, but in almost every other civilised country 21 is the age of majority. We should think very carefully before we feel ourselves able to ignore this worldwide experience.
I hope that the Government will think again, even at this late stage. I hope that they will at least seriously consider according to infants the very limited protection in the field of contract which is suggested in the minority Report and which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). By doing that we should not be denying young people anything they want. We should be conferring a privilege which I think they richly deserve.
On the tax matter, I hope that the logic of what they are doing has not escaped the Government and that in spite of Schedule 2 there will be no nonsense when the Chancellor carries out his threat to include children in the family unit for tax purposes. The Government will forfeit what little moral authority still remains to them if they try to have it both ways and, in their desire to introduce class legislation, try so to arrange matters as to leave a person between 18 and 21, who under the Bill will become an adult, an infant for tax purposes.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I apologise to the House for not having been here for the earlier speeches. I understand that the tax question which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) has just


raised was taken earlier by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). My hon. Friend made a slight mistake when he spoke of the Chancellor's "threat". There is no question of a threat. It is a fait accompli.
I want to ask the Attorney-General, first, how the provisions of the Bill will affect young men of 18 who wish to go to university Will they be personally liable for their fees at university on the basis that they have attained their majority? Under the present means test it is very difficult to obtain a grant of about £50 if the parents have a reasonable income. That is the usual figure if the parents are earning a considerable sum. Having gone into this matter for my own personal reasons, I know that to send a young man to some university colleges today costs a bare minimum of £800–£850 a year, of which only £50 is provided by a grant. Under the present penal level of taxation which the present Government, in particular, have imposed upon us, it is no easy matter for a parent with two sons at university at the same time to find £1,600-£1,700 a year net after taxation.
If the Bill will mean that a young man of 18 on attaining his majority can claim a full grant because, having attained his majority, he is in no way dependent on his parents, if for no other reason I personally, as a parent, shall welcome the Bill wholeheartedly; but it will cost the taxpayer and the ratepayer a great deal of money.
My next question concerns an aspect which may have been raised already; and, if it has, I apologise to the House for raising it again. What happens in the case of a grandparent or parent who died some years previously and left a very large sum of money to his grandson or son on the basis that he would receive it, in the terms of the will, on attaining his majority? Will young men who hitherto would have had to wait until they were 21 now find themselves the free users of sums of, say, £100,000 or £200,000?
This aspect needs examining, because a young man at that age, going to the university of all places, with enormous sums at his disposal can easily become a victim to his fellows. From 18 to 21 is an impressionable age to have the free

handling of large sums of money. It obviously would not have been in the testator's mind that the legatee should receive the sum at 18.
Finally, will any attempt be made by the Government to keep the Bill in step with the criminal law? As the Attorney-General knows only too well, there is little that the recorder or chairman can do at quarter sessions in the case of a young man under 21. Such a defendant can be fined, put on probation or sent to a detention centre. Up to the age of 21 he can be sent to borstal. He can be sent to prison if the judges wishes, but the reasons for so doing must be stated; and if there is to be any chance of their being upheld by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, the reasons have to be very special indeed. If young men are to attain their majority at 18, it is only equitable and sensible that the provision relating to whether a person under 21 can be sent to prison without special reasons being stated should be removed.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Emlya Hooson: This is a Bill which is bristling with Committee points on which it is not easy to make a Second Reading speech. I extend a qualified welcome to it, and apologise for having missed the early speeches.
The Lord Chancellor made it clear that he regarded this as being three Bills in one but that because of the lack of Parliamentary time it was necessary to concertina them into one Bill. That is how the Bill comes before the House in this way.
I agree with the Attorney-General that it was better to take the good rather than delay matters and wait for the ideal. If we delay matters and waited for the ideal, we should have to delay for many years, because there is so much work to be done on this subject.
It is essential that we get absolutely clear the relationship between the Government, the House and the Law Commission. The Commission is now a very important instrument of reform. It has expertise which is not available to private Members but is available to the Government. However, the Commission is very ready informally to help any private Member with any matter that he seeks


to bring before the House. It is important that the House should have the opportunity in the fairly near future to consider in relation to future reforms arising not only on Government Bills but also on Private Members' Bills exactly what the relationship should be between the Government, the Commission and the ordinary Member in the House of Commons. Much of the criticism that has been made of the Bill on Committee matters is criticism which the Commission must consider in deciding how to extend the reform on these three important aspects.
To turn to the Bill itself, it seems to me with regard to Part 1 that there is no agreed age of majority. There is no age to which objection cannot be taken. One can argue about the age of 21. Many people are immature at that age. On the other hand, many people are extremely mature at 21. It is possible to argue about the age of 18. I believe that in Scotland the age for free marriages without consent is 16, and I do not know that the Scots have suffered from that fact. There are other countries where a child cannot own property until he is 25 or 27. Very often this is a matter of general habit and experience.
However, having considered all the arguments, and albeit conceding many of the arguments in favour of the ages of 20 and 21—I thought the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) put forward the contrary argument in a constructive speech—although I was to some extent swayed, I have come to the conclusion that 18 is the right age. I was first persuaded to this view when I was very much opposed to the death penalty. I used to think that if it was right to hang a boy at 18 it was right that he should have the vote at that age. I do not remember anybody who has opposed this Bill, for example, arguing in those days that 21 was the right age at which capital punishment should be executed upon a person. It seemed to me that if it was right for a man to serve his country at the age of 18 and if the final penalty of the law was to be exacted at that age, then it was at least right that other measures of responsibility should devolve upon a person at the age of 18.
At the very least there should be the one age. We should not have 18 as the age at which people can vote for membership of this House but 20 as the age at which one is allowed to marry without the consent of one's parents. If it is to be 18, it should be 18 for all. By all means let us have a debate about the right age, whether it should be 18 or 20, but whatever it is, it should be the same age across the board.
If we want a responsible society we must give responsibility. I entirely agree with the point that has been made that we are not conferring simple benefits on the under 21s, on those between 18 and 21, by means of the Bill. We are not. We are conferring an addition to certain rights and benefits. We are conferring very important liabilities. But it is right that the young people should take them. Today when people are probably physically maturer at an earlier age—as the Latey Report pointed out, they are probably emotionally maturer —although they do not necessarily have a knowledge of life which makes their judgment any more mature, at the same time I believe there should be a reduction in the age for some purposes to 18, and if we reduce the age for some purposes we must reduce it for all purposes.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), in an interesting speech, quoted the old adage
marry in haste and repent at leisure".
Then he dealt with the question of hereditary peers. He might reflect that the hereditary peers who have considerable landed estates perhaps have more to repent about at leisure in relation to a marriage that has been extremely hasty. That might account for the preponderance of hereditary peers in the voting that took place in another place on the issue of the age at which marriage should be permissible without the consent of the parents.
As I have said, many of the points that could be raised on this part of the Bill are really Committee points and I shall not weary the House with them.
As to the second Part of the Bill, I give an unqualified welcome to it. This does not exhaust the matter. It is just a beginning. There are many implications and ramifications in the first and second Parts which have not been adequately considered yet, but I am certain that this


reform of giving illegitimate children the same rights of succession on their parents' intestacy as if they were legitimate is an overdue reform. In fact, I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) that we should eventually have a much larger Bill dealing with this whole problem.
With regard to Part III, which empowers the courts to order blood tests in cases of disputed paternity, I am in favour of this provision. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about it in the House. A blood test normally cannot establish paternity. It is a very rare case indeed and is confined to very few blood groups—those of a special and unique kind—where a blood test can possibly give evidence and establish paternity. What a blood test can do in the majority of cases is to say whether it is possible for the putative father to be the father. In the majority of cases we all have common blood groups. What is possible is for a putative father to be excluded from the possibility of paternity by a blood test. I see nothing inequitable or unfair in this provision.
It is entirely fair and reasonable that courts should have the right to give directions for the use of a blood test to ascertain—quoting from Clause 18—
whether such tests show that a party to the proceedings is or is not thereby excluded from being the father of that person …".
It is entirely right that this should be so. Some of the objections raised and the qualms expressed about this provision are misplaced and seem to indicate that this provision is not properly understood.
I am sure that the reforms in this Bill are largely overdue, and it is right that they should be embodied in a Bill of this kind, even though there are really three separate Bills, if adequate parliamentary time cannot be found for them. I ask the Attorney-General to state his views on what should be the relationship between the Law Commission and the House on future reform and the development of the reforms in the Bill.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I shall speak briefly in expressing my support for the Bill. The measures it contains, so far as they go, deserve a warm welcome.
Having said that, I think the criticisms of piecemeal legislation which were made

by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) have a greater validity than some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), have allowed. This Bill is entitled the Family Law Reform Bill, with no apparent saving sense of irony. After all, two-thirds of it deal with those who are not members of the family in the legal sense. A very important point made by my right hon. and learned Friend was that what we need in this country is a code of family law, just as we need a code of criminal law—a code of family law which would be inspired by coherent principles and which we can get only if we deal with this problem as a whole.
One of the things I had hoped from the Law Commission was precisely that. The Commission has done extremely good work in helping on individual reforms, but it is not fulfilling that function of providing coherent legal principles applicable over wide ranges of the law. This can be developed to a certain extent by great judges, but the ultimate burden to do this really falls on legislators. True, half a loaf is better than no bread, but one could look to the Law Commission to provide us with a loaf in this respect, as also to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, whose knowledge of the law is both wide and deep.
I turn, first, to Part I and the question whether marriage should be allowed without parental consent at the age of 18 or 20. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) quoted the aphorism, if such it be,
Marry in haste and repent at leisure.
But one can wait too long; that also may be a source of grief, and repentance may be of no avail. Much has been said about the lack of psychological maturity of young persons at the age of 18. Psychological maturity is such an evanescent quality, attained by some at an early age but avoided by others, apparently, however long they live, that I regard that as an unsatisfactory concept on which to attempt to base the law.
The basic argument for lowering the age at which a minor may contract marriage is an economic, not a psychological, one. The old economic obstacles to early marriage have largely disappeared. Young people are able to marry at an early age because they have the economic


means to do so. By attempting to keep the age artificially high, we should not stop young people living together when they have the economic opportunity. Probably, we should merely increase the number of illegitimate children in the world, and that would be a strange result brought about by a Bill intended to ameliorate that social problem.
The hereditary peers have every right to give their view and vote in the other place, but the point here is that, for obvious reasons, those who have hereditary peerages have a special interest in controlling as much as they can the marriage of their children. What this House has to decide is whether that special interest is weighty and important enough to outbalance the general social desirability of recognising economic facts and acknowledging that people want to get married earlier and in great numbers are now doing so.
I warmly welcome Part II because it greatly improves the position of those who are already heavily handicapped in society through no fault of their own. My only criticism is that it does not go far enough. I await with interest the publication of the Report by the Public Teachers of Law on the whole meaning and concept of legitimacy and illegitimacy in our society today. There is a special duty on those like the hon. Member for Pontypool and myself who have opposed and criticised the law on abortion to do all in our power to make it easier for unmarried women who are pregnant to bear their children.
Religious people have at times tended merely to point the finger of scorn at those who are unmarried and bear children. That has been their contribution. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot condemn abortion and condemn the birth of illegitimate children in the same breath. However, to be fair to the religious, one should point out that at the Council of Merton in 1264, to which there has been brief reference in the debate, it was the bishops of the day who stood out for the rights of the illegitimate, it was the spiritual peers who fought for their rights but were vanquished by the temporal peers.
My final comment is about Part IV, and Clause 25 in particular, which

enables a father's name to be entered on the register of birth of an illegitimate child in a range of circumstances in which that is not possible today. I welcome this, but there is an important omission. I am sorry that the Attorney-General did not deal with it. Unfortunately, he dismissed Part IV with a few commendatory phrases. That entry has no legal effect whatever. It may save an illegitimate child embarrassment in later life when applying for jobs and so on, when birth certificates are required, but it establishes no legal relationship between the father and the child. Many legal systems enable a father to put himself in a legal relationship with an illegitimate child if he wishes to do so. Such a legal relationship may be valuable, having important financial consequences in matters of maintenance and so on. I shall be interested to know why the Government did not take the opportunity to include some such provision in the Bill.
The Bill is a humanitarian Measure. There is a great deal of suffering in the world. Much of it is unavoidable, but some is avoidable. The Bill makes a contribution to the avoiding of unnecessary human suffering, and as such it deserves the welcome which it has received in the House.

6.57 p.m.

The Attorney-General: May I have the leave of the House to speak again? I wish to reply to what has been a constructive and interesting debate. Those who are here may well feel that the size of the attendance—not for the first time, or, I suspect, for the last—has borne little relation to the importance of the subject matter.
I share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—though I do not know whether I should share them with quite the same severity—on what seemed to be the unduly churlish reaction of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) to a Bill which has been hailed as humanitarian and as making a valuable and important contribution to legal and social reform. In my submission, piecemeal legislation, avoidable though it ought to be, brings the law into far less disrepute than unjust legislation. We are here dealing with, among


other things, the law of succession in relation to illegitimate persons, and this has been an outstanding example of injustice which ought to have been swept off the Statute Book long ago.
True, if Parliamentary arrangements and time permitted, it would be desirable to proceed with these matters in a way which prevented the proliferation of Measures on the Statute Book. To those critics who say that there should have been only one Bill instead of three, I point out that that would have meant in due course, three more, instead of one, on the Statute Book.
We are dealing with a field in which we are trying to catch up with the neglect of centuries in social and law reform. The problem of codifying the law is enormously complex and lengthy. The same is true of the law of contract and criminal law. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said about the need for these codes and the embodiment of the provisions of the law in these separate fields into one coherent entity, but it takes time. The alternative that he and the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom seem to be commending is that we should delay introducing urgently needed Measures which can be dealt with piecemeal in so far as they deal with a specific part of the law. His suggestion is that these reforms should be postponed until a date, which may be indefinite, when the whole thing can be dealt with together.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Before Committees at present there are the Divorce Reform Bill and the Matrimonial Property Bill, and now we have the Family Law Reform Bill. I know the straitjacket that we are all in, but does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that we should somehow be able to manage our affairs better so as to have these things together?

The Attorney-General: The House should look at these things. We have tried to introduce the Second Reading procedures in the course of the present Administration, but we have not always had full assistance. In one or two fields we have, but the moment a whiff of opposition appears, the idea of Second Reading procedures, whatever side it comes from, disappears completely. I entirely agree. I think that a massive frustration

is felt by those of us concerned to get on with it over the slowness and perhaps excessive complexity of Parliamentary procedures. This needs the urgent attention of the House.
But I return to my proposition that to use that as a reason for postponing a Measure of this kind is wholly untenable. If something is cruelly unjust, the quicker we can remedy it by piecemeal legislation—if that is the only way of proceeding—the better. The criticism from the other side of the House about progress comes very strangely when right hon. and hon. Members opposite dragged their feet in law and social reform through the decades they exercised political power. The present Administration set up the Law Commission, which creates a machinery for law reform that the country has never had before, a combination of professionalism, skill and vested interest in law reform which is already producing most valuable results, and which provides the House with a service in law reform of a kind we have never had. Therefore, I reject the right hon. and learned Gentleman's approach of approving the Bill but preferring that its introduction should be postponed.
A number of matters were raised in the debate which may be more appropriate for Committee, and accordingly if hon. Members find that I do not deal with them all I hope that they will forgive me and wait for a later stage, when we can go into the detail of the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool, in a vigorous and characteristic speech, regretted that other legal obstacles in the way of the young and the illegitimate have not been finally resolved in the Bill. My hon. Friend attached great importance to the Law Commission, which is urgently involved in the preparation of proposals about family law. The other legal obstacles to which he referred will no doubt be taken up.
We had valuable speeches from two hon. Members who served on the Committees whose work we have been considering. I am grateful in particular to the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) for his contribution. He will forgive me if I do not pursue them in some detail. When he told the House that he had been here over the course of 40 years it made


me realise how lightly age weighs upon him, if he will permit me to say so. I had to look up the book to see whether he had made a mistake in that figure.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was 21 when I first took the oath.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman makes no concession on that. He welcomed the Bill, but criticised it for being incomplete, and directed the main part of his criticism to the matters about which he made an interesting minority report in the Russell Report. Perhaps I may say one thing to him which is also relevant to the submissions of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool and the Member for Chelmsford. Clause 25 goes some way to make it easy for a father who wants to do so to make a formal recognition of his bastard child by signing the register. It is true that he can do that now, but the Clause makes it easier for him. I shall certainly look at the wider point the hon. Member for Chelmsford made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) expressed perhaps a minority view of the House, that nobody should be allowed to marry until he or she reached the age of 18. I am inclined to agree with the Latey Committee that to keep the age at 16 is probably right. The Committee pointed out in its Report the earlier onset of purity—I mean puberty, alas, not necessarily the same thing. According to statistical evidence, the age of the onset of puberty has been falling at the rate of four months for every decade since 1830 and now stands in girls at an average age of 13·2 years.
It is also interesting that the Registrar-General's figures for 1964 show that in that year 24,787 young women under 18 were married in England and Wales, and that children were born within seven months of marriage to over 10,000 of them. Raising the minimum age for marriage would inevitably result in an alarming increase in the number of illegitimate births. If the age of consent is to remain at 16 while the marriage age is raised to 18 it would appear, as the Latey Committee suggest, as an encouragement to illicit sexual intercourse, and result in a considerable increase in the present number of illegitimate children,

a contingency which, knowing my hon. Friend as I do, I am sure he would not welcome.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclen-nan), who was a member of the Latey Committee, made one of the several weighty contributions we have heard in the debate and asked me about the progress of the Law Commission in the field of the law of contracts in particular in relation to infants' contracts. I am afraid I cannot give him any precise information about that matter this evening.
My hon. Friend also asked me a question about Clause 21(1). I do not think it would be wrong to say that a court should attach importance to a person's refusal to undergo a blood test. I think my hon. Friend was suggesting it should be approached in that light. I would have thought that a refusal to undergo a blood test would be a fact which ought not to be disregarded. In a given case where there were bona fide conscientious grounds for refusing a blood test the court would undoubtedly take that into account.
Then the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), as the first layman to speak, made, if I may say so, a most valuable contribution to our discussion. She asked me about the impact of the reduction of the age of minority on wages. It will have no necessary consequence. Wages are a matter for negotiation, I suppose, between employer and employee, depending on many factors, such as the state of the market, and the services actually rendered by the employee. There is, therefore, no necessary consequence flowing in that direction from this Bill.
The hon. Lady asked why we were placing additional responsibilities on young people. I venture to put this point of view to the House, that if we deny to the young the opportunity of undertaking these responsibilities we may well be reducing the sense of responsibility which we ought to be encouraging.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) presented the hideous prospect of weeks of debate on this Bill. I hope that will not happen. I hope that, as some of the proposals in the Bill certainly have an element of urgency about them, we shall


not dally unduly in Committee. My hon. Friend was worried, as other hon. Members have been, about the risk that in this vast, tempting field of hire purchase there might be many victims among the young. I agree with the view which has been expressed by hon. Members that what we want to do is to strengthen even further our consumer protection law. We have gone a good deal of the way in that by various amendments to laws relating to hire purchase, and in the recent Trade Descriptions Act, and it is hoped—we shall see how it works out—that that will prove to be a protection against undue exploitation of those who may easily be tempted if not hypnotised by the approaches of quick salesmen.
Then the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) supported the minority Report in the Latey Committee's Report, and I think it was he who thought that the lesson of Scotland pointed to the need to retain the marriage age at a higher age than 18. The view was expressed that marriages in Scotland, where marriage is legal at the age of 16, lead to a higher divorce rate than that in England. The fact I think is that there is no three-year rule in Scottish divorce law as there is in our law in England. After the three-year period the Scottish and the English divorce rates level out at pretty well the same level and are about the same. Scottish law, under which anyone over 16 can marry whomever he likes without any consent being required at all, seems to have worked reasonably well in Scotland. I do not know that the Scottish marital scene is any more worrying than that south of the Border. I would have thought not, and there may well be some lessons to be learned from this experience but whether success there is due to any particular quality of character and strength of will north of the Border I know not. That may be a possible answer. One hon. Member suggests that it is the cold weather. I should have thought that a disincentive rather than an incentive.
There were other points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder). Perhaps they are more appropriate to Committee, but he asked me a particular question about

the temptations, and the risk of squandering, which might be confronted if large sums became available to a youth at 18. The answer is that the testator or settlor of an estate will be free to tie up a large sum, like £100,000, or whatever particular sum he had in mind, till the beneficiary reaches any specified age, whether 21 or 25, or whatever age he may choose.

Mr. Crowder: The point I made is this, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can clarify the question. If in a will the wording is such that the beneficiary will receive money outright on coming of age, and provided that the will was previous to the passing of the Bill, can one take it that, although the coming of age is to be changed from 21 to 18, 21 will apply to any will previous to the passing of the Bill?

The Attorney-General: It does not affect present dispositions of property at all. That I made clear in my opening speech, which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not have the opportunity, he being engaged elsewhere, of hearing.
I am grateful to the House for the welcome it has given to the Bill as a whole, and I hope it will now have a speedy passage through Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — FAMILY LAW REFORM [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the age of majority, to persons who have not attained that age and to the time when a particular age is attained, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 out of moneys so provided which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the use of blood tests for the purpose of determining the paternity of any person in civil proceedings.—[Mr. Grey.]

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have, as is my wont, posted the Amendments which I have selected for debate this evening. There will be two debates. The first on new Clause 1, and later there will be a debate on Amendment No. 4.

New Clause 1

REVIEW

The Minister shall, as at 1st April 1971, undertake a review of all pensions to which this Act applies and shall estimate the change if any in the purchasing power of such pensions since the last date or dates upon which such pensions were increased or if they were not so increased since the date or dates upon which they were first paid, and if in the case of any such pension there has been a reduction in any such purchasing power of more than 4 per cent. since such date or dates as aforesaid, then the Minister shall present a report to Parliament specifying the extent of any such reduction, the pensions to which it applies and the action which he proposes to take.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We turn from the responsibility of youth for itself to our responsibilty for the old. We felt that we ought to put down in this new Clause as nearly as we could the assurance which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee on the Bill. I should like to remind the House of the terms of that assurance. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
I am therefore ready to undertake that we will review the change in the purchasing power of the pensions to which this Bill applies as at 1st April, 1971, and if their purchasing power has been reduced by more than 4 per cent. … the Government will make a statement indicating both the extent of the reduction in the purchasing power of the pensions and what action they propose to take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 11th February, 1969; c. 87.]
That assurance was given in response to the request that was strongly put forward on our side of the Committee—namely that the Minister should review, publish and state what he will do. We want to see this undertaking set out in

the Bill, not merely because the undertaking by the party opposite is of no value as it will be in no position to implement anything after April, 1971, but because it represents a substantial change in existing legislation affecting pensions increases.
Previous public service pensions increases have depended on the severity of the pressure exerted on Governments and the pressure of organisations and of the inexorable increase in the cost of living. The Government have undertaken to carry out a review of the increase in the cost of living two years after the Bill comes into force, provided only that the purchasing power of the pension has been reduced by more than 4 per cent. in that period. This is not a very substantial provision. There has been only one consecutive two-year period over the last ten years when the cost of living has risen by less than 4 per cent., and that was between 1958 and 1960, when it increased by 1·8 per cent. Indeed, the cost of living has increased by 9·6 per cent. in the last 18 months. We may be sure, therefore, that there will be a further review to take into account the increase in the cost of living up to April, 1971.
I wish I could think that there was a real prospect that further Pensions (Increase) Bills will not be necessary every two years after that, but so long as Governments continue to finance their expenditure by an increase in the money supply rather than by genuine borrowing, so long will inflation continue and reviews be required at regular intervals. There is no provision in the new Clause for a regular biennial review, but the House will know that the Conservative Party is committed to such a review and that this was incorporated in our original new Clause in Committee, but we thought it right to write into the Bill the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary, which constitutes a substantial advance on existing practice, and a substantial advance on what the Government were originally prepared to offer.
I remind the House of what the Parliamentary Secretary said on our new Clause during Committee:
Turning to the new Clause more generally, I have already said that I do not consider that it would be wise to accept it. The reason is that other arrangements—very suitable arrangements—are going ahead for a detailed


and careful examination of what must be a complex problem, and it would be inappropriate to provide in the Bill an alternative way of reviewing and increasing public service pensions. It would prejudice the adoption of what might be regarded as something better emerging from the Committee's considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1969; c. 73.]
I recognise there the familiar ring of the Treasury brief, but within five days that Treasury brief was squashed, and I only hope that the final result will be substantially better.
We have achieved the main objective of the new Clause, which is the adoption of the principle of a two-year review, and the bird in the hand—and it will be in our hand when the time comes to implement the proposal—is worth a large number of other birds in bushes, however attractive those birds in bushes may be. Apart from whatever may have happened in those fateful five days, the Government could not in justice have refused the new Clause, in view of the proposal set out in the White Paper on National Superannuation and Social Insurance, Cmnd. 3883, paragraphs 101 and 102 of which state:
Under the new scheme the Government will be bound by Statute to review every two years the main rates of pensions and other benefits (including industrial injuries benefits) in payment. The reviews will cover present-scheme as well as new-scheme and other benefits. The increases, which will always come into operation in the autumn, will compensate for any rise in price levels since the previous increase. But this inflation-proofing is only a minimum. Pensioners and other beneficiaries will also continue to share in the nation's rising living standards. The actual amount of improvement on each occasion, beyond the inflation-proofing, must be left for decision by the Government of the day, which will need to take into account such factors as movements in earnings levels, changes in the standard of living of the community as a whole, and the general economic situation.
The Government propose that the benefit increases should be brought about by regulations, without the present need for a new Act of Parliament on each occasion.
It is scarcely conceivable that the treatment of public service pensioners could be less favourable than the White Paper proposals for national insurance benefits. The right hon. Lady the Paymaster-General on Second Reading went far to make sure that the House appreciated this point by saying that any new system of public service pensions
… will now fall to be considered in the light of our proposals for the new State

earnings-related pension scheme. … We can now consider public service pensions, which are occupational pensions of a particular kind, and the pensioner's total position under the new scheme. Now that our long-term proposals in the national field have been formulated and presented we intend to see what better arrangements we can devise for the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 1130.]
It is, therefore, inconceivable that public service pensions can be treated less generously than the proposals for the National Insurance increases.
If the Government think that there should be a two-year review and that benefit increases should be brought about by regulations, then one must assume that that is what will also be proposed for public service pensions increases in the future.
We note from the White Paper that the target date is to be April, 1972, and that payments to allow for increases under those proposals will start in the autumn. It would, therefore, be convenient that public service pensions should again be reviewed in April, 1972, at the same time as the proposals for the National Insurance benefits and that the payments should come into effect at the same time—namely, in the autumn. I can only presume that this is the reason why the Government have not themselves inserted in the Bill a new Clause covering the points which we have made. The review will take place a year after the biennial review about which they have already given an assurance. What is wanted, as has been said in every debate on every Pensions (Increase) Bill, is a regular review at least every two years, without the necessity of coming to the House. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) proposed that there should be an enabling Bill which would allow regular orders of this kind to be brought before the House, and this proposal would seem to match what we want.
We hope that the Committee considering the way in which public service pensions will be increased in future will come to a speedy conclusion. Although the Clause is modest in relation to what remains to be done, it contains a substantial advance on existing practice, and the House as a whole and the back benchers on both sides should take the credit for it. The Government dare not refuse it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: This new Clause first saw the light of day in Committee upstairs, and it may be that I influenced the increase in the figure originally chosen from 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. On reflection, I think that it was generally agreed that 4 per cent. was a much more reliable and firm figure to use as a yardstick.
I would ask hon. Members to recall what happened in Committee, and then consider whether the Clause is really necessary. In that connection, I think that it would be helpful to pay some regard to the arguments surrounding the need for a review.
Towards the end of the Second Reading debate, I gained the impression from what had been said by hon. Members on both sides, that, following five preceding reviews, three by Conservative Governments and two by Labour Governments, and regardless of where the blame for earlier errors lay, it was felt generally that provision for a regular review must be written into the legislation. That I proposed to do.
In Committee, I sought to align myself with the principle of the new Clause Until then, the Government had not committed themselves on this narrower sphere of occupational public pensions. Two or three days before the debate, the new White Paper had been published, and hon. Members had to make their contributions on the basis of a very sketchy reading of it. But my impression, which has been confirmed since, was that the review promised in the White Paper covering the whole range of pensions was clearly conditional, for all sorts of reasons. We had the White Paper, with the promise of a Bill and, if everything turned out favourably, we might see it come into operation in 1971. In my mind, that was significant. In addition, the Government might have changed their minds about a two-year review. Other factors might have been in the Minister's mind about the timing of it. The Minister might decide on a two-year or a periodical review, or even on one which depended upon certain changing criteria.
It was with those factors in mind that, in Committee upstairs, I referred to the unfortunate impression among people who, because of the erosion of money values, wrote pathetic and not well-

informed letters about our procedures saying, in effect, that it was time for a review of public pensions. In my opinion, it was degrading for them to have to write such letters, and we ourselves were a little cynical in adding our names to an Early Day Motion giving the impression to people outside that something would be done, when we knew that such a Motion did not result in any great Parliamentary advantage for the sort of measure that we had in mind. I felt that some of those decent people who had been writing to their Members of Parliament were a little misled by it.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I am sure that he is not imputing wrong motives to those hon. Members who sponsored such a Motion. He knows that such Motions are part of a pressure policy intended to persuade the Government of the day to adopt a certain line of action.

Mr. Mapp: Of course. That is the last thing that would enter my mind. Indeed, it would not enter my mind at all, because there would be no room for it. I was trying to draw attention to the need, which had become evident, for members of the public to have to write to their Members in this way every two or three years. I felt that this House could find ways of avoiding people having to write to us in that unhappy way and of ourselves having to write back ponderous letters.
In Committee, at first I tried to draft a suitable form of words myself. I would have persevered had I not found the Opposition's words, if amended, much better than anything I could have produced. When we discussed the Amendment upstairs, I referred to some earlier reasons why the principle should be adopted, and I said frankly:
If the Minister were prepared to give an undertaking to this Committee and to the House—and therefore to the appropriate Whitley Council which is now examining the far wider question—that in any case he will undertake to review this narrower field within two years from 1st April, 1969, and report his findings to the House, I should be prepared to accept that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 6th February, 1969, c. 65.]
In the event, I said that my views would be supported by my vote in the Committee. I am glad to say that my reasoning commended itself to one of my colleagues, the hon. Member for Preston,


North (Mr. Ronald Atkins), who felt, as I did, that the Government were not being asked to do anything outrageous in accepting the principle of the new Clause.
The Committee concluded its sitting that day without a vote being taken. On the following Tuesday, the Minister was very much more forthcoming, and gave us the kind of undertaking which had been sought. It was the kind of undertaking which, normally, the House would accept. He said:
I am therefore ready to undertake that we will review the change in the purchasing power of the pensions to which this Bill applies as at the 1st April, 1971, and if their purchasing power has been reduced by more than 4 per cent.—I take the figure of the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend, because it is more realistic than the figure of 2 per cent. in the Clause, with which proportion I do not think the hon. Gentlemen opposite will be disposed to disagree—the Government will make a statement indicating both the extent of the reduction in the purchasing power of the pensions and what action they proposed to take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 11th February 1969, c. 87.]
I thought about those words after the Minister spoke, and I felt that we had succeeded in getting about 99 per cent. of what we asked. My reservation lay in the fact that the White Paper promised a review on the general front. Had there been no such White Paper and no general guarantee of that kind, I might have disappointed my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, so overwhelming did I feel was the need for a review and that it should be written into our legislation. But merely because the legislation will carry us forward to 1971 and because the White Paper has appeared in the meantime containing a firm prospect for the future, it may be that the Government's initiative will have repercussions on right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, even on general pensions arrangements. They invariably write their policy about five years after we have set out the principles. Therefore, I felt that here was an undertaking that we could firmly accept.
I have since made inquiries of people who try to get these reviews through us. Generally speaking, they are happy with the Parliamentary position reached in Committee. Therefore, if the House is faced with a Division on the issue of the new Clause this evening, it will not be concerned with the issue of principle,

nor whether the Government have conceded what the new Clause is asking for; it will probably be on the question of the image outside. I shall regret it if the Opposition feel disposed, by merely having a vote, thus to demonstrate their will for the new Clause. The facts are that victory is already with us. The Government have accepted the position. I make my contribution in the hope that the Opposition will see the advantage of withdrawing the new Clause after discussion.

Mr. Jennings: I regret that I was unable to be a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill by reason of being chairman of the First Scottish Grand Committee which was meeting at the same time. Nevertheless, I have followed with great interest and have read closely the OFFICIAL REPORT of the three sittings of the Standing Committee on the Pensions (Increase) Bill. In what I am about to say I support the new Clause.
I was particularly interested in the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary in col. 87, which has already been quoted. There are three points in this statement of which to take note. The first is that in the Clause and in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement there is a recognition of a principle. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the principle was
… that the Government should provide a specific opportunity for Parliament to take stock of the position within a reasonable time…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1969; Standing Committee F, c. 87.]
The Clause does that in specific wording. Secondly, the Clause, as the undertaking of the Parliamentary Secretary also states, gives a specific date: 1st April, 1971. Thirdly, the Clause omits any reference to a biennial review. So did the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary. This was not the principle at stake in that portion of the Committee's deliberations. So we have the Parliamentary Secretary's statement and the contents of the Clause on all fours, one with the other.
Where do we differ? Why has the Clause been put down? I read the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary with great satisfaction. It was most commendable and acceptable. First, it created a precedent in all the history of public service pensions we have never


had a breakthrough like this. I commend the Government for making this statement and giving this concession. It establishes the principle and the policy of a single review. This is a verbal, although a categorical statement, and without hesitation I accept it, because I believe, quite sincerely, that the Government are prepared to carry out this single review. But we must remember something very important.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) would not press a new Clause like this. He referred to the White Paper, the subsequent legislation, and the fact that occupational pensions may or should have a special place and some treatment in the new legislation concerning income-related pensions. We are not yet certain what that place will be or what arrangements will be made. Nor are we certain that they will be in operation on 1st April, 1971, the date specified both in the new Clause and in the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, I submit that neither the White Paper nor any proposed legislation on the White Paper has any bearing on this date. I think that the most important fact is 1st April, 1971. Unless something unforeseen happens—take, for instance, the unlikely happening of the present Government extending their own life—there will be a new Government in office on 1st April, 1971. There may be a change of Government or conceivably—depending on the swing of the pendulum—the same party may be in power. Who knows? I am not speculating—[Interruption.]—One of my hon. Friends says "John, John", as if I were doubting the return of this side to power. Politics is a curious game. Anything can happen.
What I am seriously saying is that no Government, no matter what their complexion, can consider themselves bound by a verbal statement of a Minister of a previous Administration. That is the crucial argument. Much though I believe the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman and the Government in making this statement, it is conceivable that a new Government could repudiate a verbal categorical statement. That is why we should like this proposal written into the Bill so that it binds a future Government

who, should they want to alter it, will have to legislate in order to do it.
I appeal to the right hon. Lady the Paymaster-General to look at the new Clause seriously. The approach to the Bill has largely been an all-party approach. There has been no spleen, spite, or party-political bias about it. We have approached it, as far as I can see at any rate, in an all-party spirit. In consideration of this, I ask the right hon. Lady, because no future Government can be bound by the sincerity of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, to reconsider the new Clause and to write it into the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I really do not think that this matter is worth a lot of powder and shot. It is true, as the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) has said, that this is the first time that we have had a Government pledge to review at the end of a specified period. In all the years that we tried to get that out of the Conservative Government on Pensions (Increase) Bills we failed. I mention this as a matter of historical fact, not in any spirit of reproach. We never got it, but now we have got it. But, of course, Oppositions always run true to form. They ask for something, they get it, but it is not enough.
"It does not go far enough" is one of the clichés which is used by Oppositions more than enough. I do not blame the present Opposition even for that. But let us look at this. We have a pledge given on behalf of the Government by the Minister in terms which seem to be very similar, if not identical, to the terms of the new Clause. One possible reason why the Government do not want to writs the Clause into the Bill is that by so doing they might tie the hands of a Conservative Government who are pledged to do something better. It would be a great encumbrance to a Conservative Government to be tied to what the Clause says when they want to do something much better and sooner. I think that out of consideration for the honouring of Conservative Party pledges the Government are withholding a statutory limitation upon their room for manoeuvre.
Another reason why it is perhaps not desirable to write the Clause into the Bill is that I hope that by 1971 the Civil


Service will have done something more sensible about its conditions of service and superannuation arrangements. I can speak only for the Civil Service, because that is the Service in which, and for which, I have spent a great deal of my life. The real trouble about superannuation in the Civil Service is that serving officers do not take enough interest in it. If they had done, something much better than this could have been achieved years ago, and on the Second Reading of the Bill I gave some indication of what I thought might have been possible had the Civil Service taken this matter seriously in the past.
During the Second Reading debate we heard from my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General about the setting up recently of a committee of staff interest and the Government, the Civil Service Department, to review the superannuation arrangements in the Civil Service in the light of the proposed new National Superannuation scheme and also in the light of the Fulton Report. As has already been suggested, the Fulton Report thought that some alternative to the legislative process should be found for dealing with changes in pensions and pensions increases. This, I am sure, is right.
A pension is part of the conditions of service and should, I think, be subject to discussion and negotiation as part of the conditions as a whole. Serving civil servants should know what they are setting aside for the future, and what price they may have to pay for it, what surrender of current consumption they may be asked to make to assure them of more adequate superannuation payments later on. These are matters which should be within the discussions on conditions of service in any body of workers today. Separating superannuation from everything else, treating it as a different matter entirely, making it subject to an Act of Parliament, and not subject to negotiations on the Whitley Council in the ordinary way is out of date. I hope, therefore that something different and better will emerge.
I hope that we are not going to be pressed to divide on a matter of this kind, the Minister having gone so far, because even if the Clause were written into the Bill it would not command the Minister to do anything except say something, and that does not seem to be

worth legislating for. The Clause says that the Minister
shall present a Report to Parliament specifying the extent of any such reduction, the pensions to which it applies and the action which he proposes to take.
There we have a statutory provision that the Minister shall up and speak. If he ups and says to the House, "If you ask me what I propose to do about it, the answer is nothing", what will Parliament do? The Minister will not have broken his pledge literally, though he might have broken it in spirit. In any case, one does not want to pursue these matters to logical absurdity.
What greater guarantee is there in having a Clause of this kind in the Bill as against having a pledge given by the Minister? If we have a Labour Government after the General Election, this pledge will be honoured. If we have a Conservative Government, this or something better will be honoured, according to what the Conservative Party says. We are all honourable Members, and pledges are honoured if they are given. I think that Civil Service and public service pensioners can be satisfied with this as an assurance for the future, but I repeat that their future security on pensions would rest more firmly upon an agreed scheme of conditions of service and superannuation and on a specific declaration by serving civil servants of what provision they are prepared to make for the future of those who have gone on pension, knowing full well that it will be their turn next.

Captain Walter Elliot: Over the years we have enjoyed listening to many speeches on this subject from the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), but I confess that I thought I detected a large tongue in his cheek when he seemed to argue that the Government were thinking of the next Conservative Government when he referred to this pledge. The Government are holding out this offer, but it may be—through no fault of their own—that it will never be honoured because they cannot honour it. I see the hand of the Treasury behind this pledge and the way it is put, and I feel that in the end we shall all be sorry for it, and that it may grossly mislead the pensioners.
I was a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. I do not


want to detain the House for very long, or to repeat the speech that I made there, but we did not get the opportunity to comment on the Minister's summing up of our debate, and I should like to make one or two brief remarks now.
The Parliamentary Secretary uttered sympathetic words about a similar Amendment, culminating in this offer of the inquiry, but on reading his speech very carefully one sees that he used words almost identical to those which have always been used by Ministers in replying to the many debates that we have had on this subject, whichever Government have been on the benches opposite.
What it boils down to is that the Parliamentary Secretary expressed sympathy with everything we said, but then commented, "This is not the way to do it". We always get that, whichever Government are on those benches. In my view this is the way to do it, just as the Grigg Committee's biennial review is the way to deal with the pay and pensions of the fighting Services.
The right hon. Member for Sowerby seemed to question the value of a review. He said that the Minister would not be committed to anything, but if one looks at the various recommendations of the Grigg Committee over the years one sees that it has acquired such influence that it is always accepted. I submit that this is the right way. I detect the Treasury's hand behind its rejection.
In Committee it was most interesting to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary from the Ministry of Social Security replying to the debate—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): May I correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman? I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development—which may be even more puzzling to the hon. and gallant Member.

8.0 p.m.

Captain Elliot: At any rate, the hon. Gentleman was replying on behalf of the Ministry of Social Security. I found that most interesting, because over the years, whichever Government have been in power, such debates have regularly

been replied to by a Treasury Minister. That means that no question of social justice is considered; it is question of cash. The Treasury knows the possible cost of any recommendation which may be made. That is most important. We cannot ignore it. But we can get over the difficulty if the case for an increase in pensions is investigated at the same time as is the case for an increase of salaries for those still earning.
I realise that no Government can go on producing enormous sums of money, whether it be for those currently earning or for pensioners, but in the past the pensioners have always been the ones to suffer. Those currently earning scrape the barrel so that there is nothing left. When retrenchment is necessary the burden need not always fall on the pensioner. If their case is considered at the same time as the case for those currently earning, the money can be properly divided between the two. The Clause will protect the pensioner, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) has made a very important point in submitting that instead of the biennial review proposed in the Clause pensions should be reviewed at the same time as are increases in salaries. I agree with him absolutely about that, but it is far too much to ask the Minister to accept that principle, known as "dynamism", which holds that the pensions of persons already retired should move in relation to the salaries of those currently earning. The new Clause is probably as good as we will get.
The biennial review may not take place at such frequent intervals as increases in salaries are made, but at least it would be an improvement on the frequency with which pensions increase Measures have been brought before the House. In the Second Reading debate the right hon. Lady reviewed the periods which have elapsed between successive Bills, and I need not go into that matter. It is enough to say that the minimum period has been about three years.
The Clause asks the Government to undertake such a review at slightly more frequent intervals, although not committing them to any action. As the right


hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said, the Government might submit a report to the House and do nothing about it. But at least they would have an obligation to set out in black and white by how much the purchasing power of pensions had decreased since the previous review, and what action they proposed to take.
When such a report was presented to Parliament we would have our own remedies if no action were taken to have the matter debated. We could ask the Leader of the House at business question time every Thursday why he had not arranged for a debate on the very important subject of the report presented to the House by the Minister. We could table early day Motions—although I share the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) on this point. He was right to point out that in a sense such Motions were a fraud on pensioners. It is something of a fraud to sign such a Motion knowing that when we tell our pensioner constituents that we have signed such a Motion, in practice it makes very little difference and has little effect on the Government.
I say that without prejudice to my admiration for the sponsors of such Motions, in doing whatever they can. Early Day Motions are only one of the means by which an issue can be drawn to the attention of the Government. I am in no way denigrating them, any more than was the hon. Member opposite, but in public we tend to over-emphasise the effect of such Motions on the mind of the Government.
As to whether the Clause should be voted upon, different views are held on both sides of the Committee. If assurances were given by the Parliamentary Secretary upstairs in nearly the same words as those in the Clause I cannot see why the Government should refuse to accept it. The hon. Member has given a pledge. I suppose that he spoke on behalf of the Government, although, if we examine the statements made by hon. Members opposite when they were in opposition immediately before 1964 we see that even statements made in the House—and even by such Members as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the right hon.

Member for Sowerby—are not necessarily regarded as a positive commitment by the Labour Party.
We want something more precise. I am not casting any reflection on the hon. Member who, I am sure, made the pledge in good faith, but in view of the past history of this matter I should feel happier if this provision were in the Bill, rather than that it should be left to us to quote what was said in Committee upstairs—to which very little attention is paid.
That is why I hope either that the right hon. Lady will accept the Clause—which would cost her nothing—or the official Opposition will press the matter to a Division.

Mr. John Nott: I listened to the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) with great interest. He knows more about this subject than I am ever likely to know. But in raising the question of the failings of previous Conservative Administrations, he ought not to feel that this should inhibit any of my hon. Friends or myself from making good proposals for the future. He says that if the Clause were accepted it might restrict the freedom of manœuvre of a future Conservative Administration—but that is precisely what we want to do. We are anxious to give this proposal statutory backing in order to ensure that whatever Government are in power it will have binding statutory effect.
I was not fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee on the Bill but I have tried to follow the debates from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I want to refer to the Minister's comments at the second sitting of the Committee, before he gave his undertaking at the third sitting. Some days elapsed between the two sittings, and to some extent the Minister's off-the-cuff answer at the second sitting is rather important.
The Minister put forward two principal objections to the new Clause. First, he said that any new machinery set up should allow full consideration of the relationship between public service pensions and the new State scheme. Secondly, he said that anyhow an inter-departmental committee was already keeping this subject under review. The latter objection was fully covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in Committee, when


he said that all the Opposition were asking for was for the Minister to review, to publish and to state what he would do, and that that was as far as it went. Therefore, even if an inter-departmental committee is keeping these matters under review, there can be no objection to the new Clause because it does not commit the Government to payment.
But it was the former objection which made me most nervous. The public service pension is an occupational pension, and the Minister's objection raises the question of whether we are talking about entitlement or discretion. In Committee we were told that the pension itself is an entitlement but that the increases are a question of discretion. I wholly dissent from that view. Considering future pensions schemes, we must surely accept that there should be as much of a dynamic element in public service pensions as there is now for pensions in the private sector, and so I would regard increases in public service occupational pensions as a matter of entitlement and not discretion.
The right hon. Member for Sowerby talked about pensions being a part of service, and said that they should be come so and that increases should be automatic and outside Parliament's control. The trouble here is that the Government's scheme in the White Paper is as "pay-as-you-go" scheme. If he is suggesting that public service pensions should be incorporated in the new State scheme, I can only say that that would have a serious adverse effect on our financial situation, because many such pensions are funded, including the local authority ones, for instance—

Mr. Houghton: I was not suggesting that. Whatever happens to the Civil Service pensions scheme, which is non-contributory, it will have to be part of the occupational scheme of the Civil Service in the same way as those of teachers and local government employees and the rest and not brought within the scope of the State scheme.

Mr. Nott: I appreciate the point, and I agree that public service pensions should not be incorporated into the State scheme. If that happened, we should lose the funded element of a large portion of the present public service pensions. The

"pay-as-you-go" scheme proposed by the Government is thoroughly irresponsible. For any Government to publish a White Paper committing themselves on a pay as you go scheme to an automatic increase in the State pension related to inflation is quite irresponsible. How the Treasury has allowed them to do so. I cannot conceive—

Mr. Lubbock: It is not for 20 years.

Mr. Nott: Perhaps it will not have its fullest impact for 20 years until 1991, but for any Government to commit themselves to fixing increases in pension over the next decades is irresponsible. The The new Clause does not do this. It requires only that the Minister should be bound to make a review and give the results to the House.
I am sure that everyone welcomes the undertaking which the Parliamentary Secretary gave. It is a great advance, and I would not detract from it. But the right hon. Member for Sowerby asked, "If the Minister has given an undertaking, why should hon. Members opposite require more?" With no kind of concern about what Conservative Administrations might or might not have done when in power, I would only say that for the public service pensioner there is a fundamental difference between a statutory undertaking in a Bill and a Ministerial undertaking. He would feel happy that this was a genuine advance if it were contained in an Act of Parliament. With the best will in the world, a Ministerial undertaking is quite different. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that he accepted the objections put by my hon. Friend, but it still would be infinitely more valuable to the pensioner if written into the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
Then there is the question of the likely change of Government. The history of this matter since the war is one of back benchers of the Opposition and the Government ganging up on the Government of the day, who withstand the demands which they make. Since this is bound to continue, it must be better to have the new Clause as a statutory undertaking rather than have to rely on a Minister's undertaking now.
The new Clause meets three admirable objectives. First of all, it meets the Government's own criticisms of the


present system in paragraph 100 of the White Paper. Second, it meets the points made in the Fulton Report. Third, it meets the Conservative Party's own election undertaking of having a biennial re view. To meet a Conservative pledge, a Fulton recommendation and a Socialist criticism all in one fell swoop—

Mr. Lubbock: And also a Liberal Amendment to the Pensions (Increase) Bill of 1962.

Mr. Nott: The Liberals are very fine people, but they are not of much consequence.

Mr. Mapp: The hon. Gentleman has just asserted, unwittingly I think, that this promises a biennial review. That was the case with a new Clause moved in Committee, but this one refers only to a review on 1st April, 1971, and does not promise a biennial review.

Mr. Nott: I accept the hon. Member's point, but to have a statutory review in April, 1971, is a greater step towards a biennial review than a Ministerial undertaking, as I think he will agree.
As I said, to meet a Conservative pledge, a Fulton recommendation and a Socialist criticism seems to be worthwhile, and I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause in that spirit.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: One hon. Member said that we made a serious attempt in Committee to solve the problems of pensioners in a no party spirit, and that is absolutely true. It was an interesting Committee in which many important points were made; but we ended as much at sea as we had begun because we could never latch on to any principle to apply to the claims upon the present generation which the previous generation is trying to make. We all felt that there was some degree of obligation upon us to do something for public service pensioners, but we were not able in Committee to determine precisely what it ought to be.
Although no answer on questions of principle came out of Committee, my hon. Friends who were present felt that at any rate some degree of commitment had been accepted by the Government in so far as the Parliamentary Secretary gave

what appeared to be a firm undertaking, as a result of which the original Amendment, out of which this present Amendment has arisen, with withdrawn. The wording of the new Clause is already so weak that its effect has been brought practically to vanishing point—and yet, we understand, the Government are not prepared even to commit themselves to this extent. Out of the Committee, therefore, came neither a principle nor a commitment. It seems to me as if all the time we spent upstairs was wasted.
I ask the right hon. Lady tonight to speak quite clearly and to make quite plain what is her position. When we are dealing with money we must be precise. Will she explain precisely why the Government have proposed these particular increases and how they relate these increases to the unfortunately continuing trend of rising prices? We are entitled to ask the right hon. Lady whether she considers that the increases proposed in the Bill are related directly to the cost of living.
If they are related directly to changes in the cost of living, then we must be a little more accurate in our consideration of these changes. For those on a relatively high standard of living, those on an average standard of living and those on a low standard of living, particular changes in prices have a different bearing. To use one set of percentages across the board, therefore, is not necessarily fair or related to any principle. Moreover, we understand that the Government are soon to bring out an old people's cost-of-living index, which will refer particularly to the items which old people need to buy. May we, therefore, be precise about what we mean when we talk about changes in the cost of living?
Will the right hon. Lady also tell us exactly how the National Insurance element is blended into the increases proposed in the Bill? I understand the Government's anxiety to reduce their total commitments. If they are increasing the amount of money paid to public service pensioners through National Insurance, they may well feel that they are not also obliged to give them money by increases in their pensions. But, once again, the principle must be established: is a public service pension an entitlement or is it related to need? If it is related to


need, then it is understandable that changes in National Insurance now and in the future can be taken into account; but if it is related to entitlement, then National Insurance is also an entitlement—a different entitlement—and it ought not to be blended into this picture.
In the White Paper there occurs the splendid phrase that pensioners should be allowed to share in the nation's rising living standards. Will the right hon. Lady explain how the Bill relates increases in pensions to rising living standards and how she proposes they should be so related in the future? These are the questions which arise on this issue—how, by what index and how often changes are to be made?
There have been a series of these Bills—I do not know how many. On each occasion we have required pensioners' organisations to exert pressure, to state their claims, to make their case and to speak for themselves again and again. If we feel that what we axe giving them is theirs by right, it is unseemly that we should oblige them to mount this exercise again and again. Sooner or later Parliament, too, must grow tired of having to make these painful reviews. It seems it is not a question of defining precisely what the public service pensioners should have and making sure that they get it; it seems to be a question of listening to how loudly they shout—and that is the wrong approach. What we are admitting is that we are not concerned with what the pensioners' claims amount to; we are more concerned with what their votes amount to.
I hope that the Government mean what they say in the White Paper that in future there will be an automatic review every two years. But we have challenged them, on the first occasion on which it is possible, to apply the two years' principle—and they begin to shuffle their feet and to say, "We do not want to write it into the Bill". How will the thousands of pensioners affected by the Bill read that refusal by the Government?
This is not just a matter of party politics. It is a moral issue which concerns us all. We must ask ourselves, "When we become old, how shall we establish the basis of our claim on the

generation who will have to pay for our pensions?"
Truth is said to be found at the bottom of a well. In this case it is probably found in the small print on the last page of the Government's White Paper, in which it is envisaged that there will be a relatively sharp increase in the contributions which are due to be made around the turn of the century in order to carry out the commitments in the White Paper. The question which our children will ask us is, "How did you treat your pensioners?" We shall have to say, "We did not commit ourselves. We did not like to go too far. We drove a rather hard bargain."
I do not think that this is very seemly. There is no wonder that the pensioners have ceased to trust the Government. The right hon. Lady will win the respect of the House and the gratitude of tens of thousands of people if she will speak unequivocally on these issues and prove her commitment by accepting the new Clause.

8.30 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): The point which we are discussing on the new Clause has given rise to a great deal of concern on both sides of the House in the past—to both back benches, to my party now in power and to the Conservative Party when they were in power. The issue is one of trying to find a way in which we can guarantee to public service pensioners a share in rising standards, as the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said, and, in particular, the right to have their pensions protected against changes in the cost of living over the years. It is significant that over the years, on all the Pensions (Increase) Bills, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will readily agree, no way has been found of avoiding the kind of Bill with which we are dealing tonight.
It is important that we should understand what arises in the context of this new Clause and what does not arise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) put very clearly the issues which arise and those which do not arise. Some of the arguments used in the debate have been more directed to matters which do not arise from the new Clause than to matters


which do. We are not talking about guaranteeing that in April, 1971, there shall automatically be paid to public service pensioners any amount arising from a review. Some arguments have seemed to suppose that this were the case. It is not. Therefore, that is not what we are arguing about.

Mr. Hordern: Would the right hon. Lady say which hon. Member mentioned that argument? I have not heard it today.

Mrs. Hart: Two or three hon. Members—I think that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was one of them—spoke in general terms of seeing the new Clause as a guarantee of moving towards an automatic system of biennial review such as is proposed in the White Paper on National Superannuation and Social Insurance.
I readily accept that if one were to guarantee automatic reviews it is likely that certain consequences would follow. But the Clause does not suggest, nor did the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) who moved and spoke to the new Clause in Committee suggest, that we should write into the Bill any payment to be due shortly after April, 1971. Therefore, we are not discussing that. Nor are we discussing, as the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) suggested, the acceptance or rejection of carrying out a review in April, 1971, because a clear undertaking has been given. Nor are we discussing an automatic payment following the review.
What, then, are we discussing? Primarily we are discussing the difference between an undertaking clearly given by the Government, and equally clearly given by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, and attempting to write a good intention into a Bill. Hon. Members opposite would find it extremely difficult to discover precedents and examples in our legislation for writing merely good intentions into Bills. It is our custom to demand that our Bills should be specific and clear and we should be ready at the same time to accept serious undertakings.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development gave a very clear undertaking in Committee which I shall be happy to repeat tonight. At the same

time, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said during the second sitting of the Committee:
My party committed itself in the 1966 Election … to a proposal for a biennial review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 6th February, 1969; c. 75.]
He repeated that undertaking in one or two other contexts during the Committee's third sitting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I now make what will be the only party point that I shall make in this speech: that commitment emerged only after the Conservative Party left office, not during the years that it was in office. We know that the mind reflects very deeply when it is out of power, and it is understandable and welcome that the Conservative Party should have made that commitment.
The Government have given a firm commitment. The hon. Member for Orpington referred to the difficulty of commitments made whilst in opposition, and sometimes Governments fail in power to fulfil specific and detailed promises given while in opposition. However, he will agree that commitments made by a Government acting with advice and collectively and on the basis of responsible decisions made collectively are always to be regarded as absolutely firm. Therefore, he can only be doubting the undertakings made by the Opposition, who are out of power. But the Opposition are convincing us over and over again that were they to come to power by some mischance in 1971 they would fulfil the kind of undertaking which the Government have given.
I see no problem at all about the difference between an undertaking and writing a good intention into a Bill. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's desire that the House should divide on the Amendment was somewhat misplaced.

Mr. Hordern: Can the right hon. Lady explain how an undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary can be translated into a good intention when that undertaking is simply transferred into the words of our new Clause?

Mrs. Hart: The words of the new Clause ask that it should be written into the Bill that
The Minister shall … undertake a review … shall estimate the change …


which has taken place "in the purchasing power of such pension" and
present a report to Parliament specifying the extent of any such reduction, the pensions to which it applies and the action he proposes to take.
At the end of the day all that is requested is that the Minister shall make a report to Parliament. The undertaking which has been given, which I gladly repeat, is that we shall review the change in the purchasing power of the pensions to which the Bill applies as at 1st April, 1971, and if that purchasing power has been reduced by more than 4 per cent. the Government will make a statement indicating the extent of the reduction in the purchasing power of the pensions and what action they propose to take.
The Government have given a clear and firm undertaking. It is an undertaking which many hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome because it means that for the first time there is something rather more than has been forthcoming when we have discussed previous Pensions (Increase) Bills. To introduce the new Clause would mean that Government undertakings made in such deliberate terms would no longer be respected. That would be a grave mistake for the House to make. Putting this into the Bill would take the matter not a bit further than the undertaking I have given, provided one accepts that both the Government and the Opposition will adhere to the undertaking. I have given my firm commitment that we will adhere to it and the Opposition for their part have clearly indicated the same.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Lady is suggesting that one does not trust the Opposition if members of the Opposition should happen to be in power in 1971.

Mrs. Hart: My confidence that we shall be in power is such that I do not regard that as one of my major anxieties.

Mr. Nott: Is not the right hon. Lady skating on rather thin ice? Paragraph 101 of the White Paper clearly commits the Government to expressing their good intentions in a Bill. She says that under the new scheme the Government will be bound by the statement to review every two years. I cannot see an important

distinction between that and what the right hon. Lady is saying.

Mrs. Hart: I suggest that the hon. Member reads the whole Bill and the White Paper. The difference is that the White Paper commits the Government to present a Bill to the House which will contain statutory provisions not merely for reviewing in the sense of the words in this Clause and following that by presenting a report to Parliament and stating the action the Minister proposes to take. The words of the paragraph indicate that the Bill will contain an undertaking to make statutory regulations. Had this new Clause said that the review must be followed by statutory regulations to be provided for in this Bill which will take account of whatever change in purchasing power over 4 per cent. has taken place, it would be a different matter, but that is not what we are discussing.
I turn to the relationship between this and the White Paper because it is clear, and I welcome this, that hon. Members on both sides have seen in the commitment given in the White Paper on National Superannuation and Social Insurance something which is extremely important to existing and future pensioners other than public service pensioners.

Mr. Jennings: I am sorry to intervene, but the right hon. Lady is going on to another subject. I should like to bring her back to her statement that neither the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary nor the new Clause guarantees a statutory increase after 1st April, 1971. I agree that the words in both do not say that, but both the statement and the new Clause are statements of good intention. Will she be frank and honest in considering the words
if . . such purchasing power of more than 4 per cent.
this is a norm which has been set in the statement—
the Government will make a statement indicating both the extent of the reduction in the purchasing power of' the pensions and what action they propose to take.
What does she mean by those words,
what action they propose to take"?
Is not the intention to make some compensation to the pensioners for the erosion by 4 per cent. of the purchasing


power of their pensions, or is this just playing with words?

Mrs. Hart: What the words indicate is exactly what they say—that the Government then consider what action they propose to take. The House should remember that as statutory provision is not written into the Bill for regular reviews every time it is necessary because of changes in purchasing power or whatever to increase the level of public service pensions, we must have a Bill of this kind. Therefore, we must bear in mind what legislative time is available for a new Bill. We have to consider at precisely what point of the Parliamentary year the Bill is introduced, and so on. These considerations must necessarily be allowed for in terms of Government undertakings, which have to be fulfilled by actual legislative time and by Bills. This is why I cannot be more specific.
Here is where I relate this to the White Paper and to the biennial review as it is proposed in the White Paper. [Interruption.] I must be allowed to make this complete point because the two are inter-related. The White Paper contains a proposal, which is being welcomed by both sides, for an inflation-proofing biennial review with statutory powers [Interruption.] I understood that it had been welcomed in many quarters, and I understood that most of the remarks this evening directed towards the desirability of a regular review of public service pensions to some extent at least derived from, and had certainly referred to, the proposal for biennial reviews made in the White Paper. If the Opposition are arguing that they are against biennial reviews for ordinary pensioners—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I do not understand the point of the intervention.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The point of the intervention is perfectly clear, and it was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott)—that there is all the difference in the world between a review which results in a report on which the Government have a discretion to act, which is what the Clause is asking and which in relation to public service pensions is all that my party has ever pledged itself to, and what is written into the White Paper, which gives the promise, as I understand the matter, of

automatic adjustment of National Insurance pensions so as to compensate for the rise in the cost of living. On that I do not want to say more than that we have not yet accepted the point as the right hon. Lady sought to put it a few moments ago. No doubt we will be debating the White Paper and it will be for the spokesmen on behalf of my party to state definitively what the attitude of the Opposition is; but it is not as the right hon. Lady has said.

Mrs. Hart: I am glad that we have that clear. What is clear to me now is that there is considerable confusion of thought among hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) interposed to ask—this was the tenor of it; I do not get the words correct—whether it was not clear that, if the Government review in the field of public service pensions discovered that the cost of living has risen by more than 4 per cent., they would be bound to carry that into effect; and what was the difficulty about the Government now giving an undertaking that they will do so? That is precisely the kind of commitment that we are making in relation to other pensioners in the White Paper—that the review will automatically be followed by statutory regulations.
Therefore, there is some confusion and difference of view amongst hon. Members opposite as to what exactly people want, both in relation to ordinary pensioners and in relation to public service pensioners.

Mr. Nott: Mr. Nott rose—

Mrs. Hart: If I give way to the hon. Member, he will merely confound the confusion on this point or will reveal it at even greater depths.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Nott: The right hon. Lady said that I ought to read the whole of the White Paper, which was a little pejorative. There are two specific points made in paragraph 101. There is certainly the point which says that the Government commit themselves to give inflation proofing. But there is also the second portion of paragraph 101 which says that the actual amount of improvement on each occasion beyond the inflation proofing must be left for decision by the Government of the day. It was to that that I


was referring when I said that there is not much distinction between what we are debating now on the new Clause and this sentence in the White Paper.

Mrs. Hart: I think the hon. Gentleman has slightly confounded confusion in terms of his own Front Bench, because that is not quite what his own Front Bench was saying a few moments ago. He will find, if he discusses it with his Front Bench spokesman, that there is a degree of difference between the two of them as to what they have said tonight in relation to the White Paper.
May I relate what I have just been saying about that paragraph in the White Paper to what we are discussing here in terms of this new Clause? Clearly, this is a major new departure that is presented in the White Paper—a statutory biennial review. Clearly, this has great bearing on what we would like to see in the future for public service pensioners. It seems to me that the position really is as follows. Within two weeks of the publication of the White Paper and, as the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said, before it has been discussed in the House of Commons, we are being asked here to write into a public service pensions Bill something the implications of which, as hon. Members opposite have clearly said, would involve the kind of commitment that the White Paper envisages. That is despite the fact that the whole relationship between the proposals in the White Paper and the future working of public service pensions must now be the subject of a great deal of detailed work in depth.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said, there will now be a review in considerable depth of the Civil Service superannuation scheme in relation to the occupational pensions and their relationship to the National Insurance pension proposed by the White Paper. This is one clear area of deep study that is now being undertaken and must now proceed. It is most important that it does. Simultaneously with that we have the Standing Inter-departmental Committee, to which my hon. Friend referred in Committee upstairs, which carries out its review of public service pensions. Here again there will be a relationship between the two. It is an indirect one,

but all the processes must now be gone through.
Concurrently with the examination of the White Paper, now to be examined by all of us, will be the study of the Civil Service superannuation scheme in relation to the proposals in the White Paper, and concurrently with that will be the study which will be made by the Inter-departmental Committee whose job it is to consider public service pensions, which again must be to some degree at least in relation to the Civil Service superannuation study. There are certain links between them.
Therefore, it would not be right if we were to go beyond the proposition that a clear undertaking is given by the Government to review the public service pensions in April, 1971. To this extent I agree with the hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford when he said in Committee that he would not want to write into the Bill a requirement to increase the pensions following the review. We are at least agreed on that, even if some of his hon. Friends seem a little uncertain about this point.
We come back, therefore, to the proposition that a Government undertaking to review should be regarded by the House as a great step forward. It was welcomed in Standing Committee. But to go further would be to make assumptions about the new thinking and new work which is now to go on in this whole subject following publication of the White Paper. The Opposition are not being reasonable if they press the new Clause. They have the undertaking. It will be honoured by us. I am certain that hon. Members opposite fully intend us to believe that their party would honour it. The undertaking being given, no one can reasonably want anything beyond that. The difference lies merely in whether it should be written into the Bill.
What is of importance to public service pensioners, looking to the future, is the work now going on, which, I hope, will ensure that we can avoid having to come to the House from time to time, whichever party be in power, with a Bill of this kind. We want to replace that system with something much better, with something which guarantees to the public service pensioner regular increases when


he ought to have them. Precisely how that should be done it is too early to say at this stage, but I believe that we can within a reasonable time, on the basis of the work which is being done, find a way to devise a new and better system.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Lady has done her best to throw dust into the eyes of hon. Members on both sides in attempting to confuse a simple issue. The question, as she herself said at one point, is whether we should write into the Bill as a statutory obligation an undertaking which her hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the Standing Committee. I say that the right hon. Lady attempted to throw dust in our eyes because she brought into the argument to an extent which seemed merely to confuse the issue the obligation which the Government set out in paragraph 101 of the White Paper.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who was a doughty champion both on earlier occasions and in Committee for the proposition that public service pensions should be reviewed every two years, gave as his reason for not wishing to write the undertaking into the Bill his belief that the matter was bound to be discussed in the context of the White Paper. Yet, as I understood one part of the right hon. Lady's somewhat confusing speech, her reluctance to see the undertaking written into the Bill stemmed not from the reason given by the hon. Member for Oldham, East but from, as it were, an entirely different point, namely, that to do so would appear to give the impression that the Government were undertaking an obligation comparable with that set out in paragraph 101, whereas, as she told the House, both she and I had made clear on previous occasions, and on this, that there was no such intention.
Let us put the question of the White Paper out of the way once and for all. It is yet to be debated in the House. My party's attitude is yet to be definitively stated. However, even at this stage, we are, to put it no higher, extremely doubtful of the wisdom of any Government undertaking a scheme of National Insurance and writing into it, as the Government have apparently done in the White Paper, not only an auto-

matic review but an undertaking automatically to grant cost-of-living increases in the light of the review. We do not seek that for public service pensioners, and have never sought it. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) has pressed over and over again that Governments should accept such an obligation, but I do not believe that it would be a responsible attitude for any Government to accept it in relation to public service pensions.
It would not surprise me if, when we debate the new White Paper, a similar view is expressed from this side of the House in relation to the obligation the Government have written into paragraph 101. The most we have ever said—and, like the right hon. Lady, I repeat it again—is that we would undertake a biennial review of public service pensions to see to what extent their purchasing power had been eroded by inflation since the date of the last increase.
The question, therefore, comes down to whether we should write the undertaking into the Bill, even in the truncated form in which it was finally given by the Parliamentary Secretary of merely having one review in April, 1971, two years after the operative date under the Bill. The argument for this was put by a number of my hon. Friends. Basically, it was that this was an obligation which now rested on the Government, that there was no reason to believe that it would not be honoured by them, and that therefore they could perfectly well accept it in the Bill, where it would not only bind the present Government but their successors.
The right hon. Lady, on the other hand, put the argument that what she called a clear and firm undertaking having been given and repeated on the Floor of the House, which we welcome, it would merely become a good intention when it was put in the Bill. That frightened me. I wondered, "Are the Government, having given an undertaking in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, now writing it down to the status of a good intention, so that if it were included in the Bill it would be merely a statement of intention, which was fully and honestly intended at the time, but which any Government would feel entitled to resile from if the conditions changed?"

Mrs. Hart: The words "good intention" refer to the payment which would need to follow the review. It was made clear by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have no point of difference on this.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Lady. Hon. Members will be able to study HANSARD tomorrow. It did not appear to me that the words "writing into the Bill a good intention" had anything to do with the question of payment of an increase but merely the question of the reviewing and reporting to Parliament.

Mrs. Hart: Mrs. Hart indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkin: If the right hon. Lady shakes her head, I accept her explanation and will rely on that. Is it really to be said that to take an undertaking which has been given in Committee and to enshrine it in statutory form in the Bill, so that it binds both the present and successive Governments, is, as she put it, a writing down of Government undertakings? I find that a very strange proposition.

Mr. Lubbock: Is not it a rather curious doctrine that no assurances given by the Government in Committee can ever be written into the Bill in case that might cast doubt on their validity? Will not this mean that we shall have some more yawning gaps in future legislation?

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree. I do not understand the right hon. Lady's philosophy in this matter. She says that the undertaking has been given by the Government in Committee and repeated by her on the Floor of the House, that it stands on the record and will be honoured by the present Government, and that their successor, which will surely be a Government formed by my party, will honour it, and therefore it is unnecessary to include it in the Bill.
An argument that she did not make was that it would clutter up the Bill with unnecessary Clauses. That is an argument that we have had often enough on other Bills, such as the Selective Employment Payments Act, for which Clauses were refused on the grounds that they would clutter up the Statute Book. If the words were refused on the grounds that they would be cluttering up the Statute Book, that would be an argument to

which some weight might be given. However, the argument which was put was that it would be a statement of good intention if it were put in the Bill, a statement of good intention, as the right hon. Lady now says, about the payment of increases. Alternatively, it would be a general writing down of the Government's intention. These are arguments I simply cannot accept.
9.0 p.m.
My hon. Friends have been entirely right to debate this new Clause and the undertaking which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary, and to make it abundantly clear where both the Government and the Opposition stand in this matter. I will briefly restate the position. It is that two years after the operative date in the present Bill, the Government, whichever Government it may be, will undertake a review of the pensions to which the Measure applies and will ascertain to what extent, if any, the value, the purchasing power, of the pensions has fallen by more than 4 per cent. since the date of the last increases, and will then present a report to Parliament.
This is the obligation which, as I understand it, rests in honour on both sides of the House. It is an obligation which I feel absolutely certain will be carried out at any rate by any Administration it will be my honour to support. The right hon. Lady is nodding assent, and I have no doubt that she is echoing my words and applying them to any Administration which she will support or of which she may even be a member.
That being the case, the question finally comes, do we need to write this into the Bill? I would be happier to see this in the Bill. I have no doubt at all that I would be much happier if this were in the Bill. If I felt there to be any doubt about the bona fides of the pledges which have been given by the Government I would have no hesitation in calling upon my hon. and right hon. Friends to—as it were—nail the marker to the mast by dividing in favour of this new Clause. However, the right hon. Lady has committed herself hip and thigh, hook, line and sinker, on this matter, and it seems to me that she, like myself, is under the strongest obligation of honour to observe this, and in these circumstances I think it would be wrong that I


should ask the House to divide on the new Clause. However, it is sufficiently important to justify the Amendment not being withdrawn. I think it would be better that it should be left to be negatived.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule 1

PENSIONS QUALIFYING FOR INCREASE UNDER SECTION 1; TABLE OF PERCENTAGE INCREASES.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 12 leave out lines 5 to 17 and insert:

Not later than 1st July 1955
25 per cent.


After 1st July 1955 but not later than 1st July 1956
18 per cent.


After 1st July 1956 but not later than 1st April 1964
14 per cent.


After 1st April 1964 but not later than 1st April 1965
20 per cent.


After 1st April 1965 but not later than 1st April 1966
15 per cent.


After 1st April 1966 but not later than 1st April 1967
10 per cent.


After 1st April 1967 but not later than 1st April 1968
5 per cent.

Let me say straight away that I move this Amendment to enable a discussion to be held upon the principles which are embodied in Part IV of Schedule 1 relating to the increases granted by the Bill. I must make it perfectly clear that I do not regard the Amendment as a definitive statement of what ought to be done at the present juncture.

I stated in the Second Reading debate, and I think I repeated in Committee, the view of the Conservative Party relating to the public service pension issue generally. We would deal with the older pensions by bringing all the pre-1956 pensions up to the same level as they would have been at had the pensioners retired in 1956, with the appropriate increases since then; we would reduce the age at which increases would be payable from 60 to 55; and we would adhere to the biennial review which we have just discussed. Nevertheless, I think it is right that even though these proposals are not to be written into the Bill—and, indeed, the perhaps most important bit, the 1956 proposal, is out of order under the Money Resolution and cannot be debated—it is right that the House should examine the logical basis, if, indeed, there

is a logical basis, for the pattern of increases proposed by the Government.

There are five things which the Government could do about public service pensions. First, they could take the view which used to be taken, that no increases should be given and that a pension once awarded was final. That view has been rejected by both parties and plays hardly any part in our thinking.

Secondly, they could go to the other extreme and accord the principle of parity, as the right hon. Lady's party promised before the 1964 election, and this is a policy to which I believe the Liberal Party is committed even now. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party, faced with the considerable cost and the difficulties of principle, have rejected full parity.

Thirdly, increases could be given so as to relieve absolute hardship; that is to say, increases could be given only to the smallest pensions, the increases being subject to overall maxima so that they did not go beyond the relief of hardship. This was the pattern in some of the earliest post-war legislation.

Fourthly, the Government could relieve relative hardship by compensating public service pensioners for increases in the cost of living.

Fifthly, the Government could go further than that and increase all pensions by amounts representing real increases in the standard of living of the pensioners.

One can detect in the Government's present philosophy as embodied in Part IV of the Schedule elements of all five approaches. I have said that pegging the pension so that it never rose was not part of our philosophy, but this is not wholly right. The cut-off date for the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1965 was 1st April, 1964. Therefore, pensioners who retired after that date have had no increase of their pensions for five years; yet it is not disputed that the cost of living has risen since April by nearly 22 per cent., and it may well be 23 per cent. by 1st April, 1969. This cannot be right. Public service pensioners should not within five years have to suffer an increase of 4s. in the £ in the cost of living without compensation. This is a last vestigial reflection of the proposition that pension increases should not be


awarded save in cases of absolute hardship.

I come to the second argument, that of parity. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has left, since I am about to quote at some length her speech on Second Reading, in which appear to be elements of the Government's argument on parity. I shall quote from not more than a column and a quarter of different parts of the right hon. Lady's speech. She said:
The 1959 Act introduced the graduated scale of increases, varying according to the date of the pension. It was followed with variations in 1962 and 1965 Acts, …

These are the important words:
… and it has helped to bring the old pensions into a closer relationship with those awarded more recently.

If that means anything, it must mean a partial recognition of the doctrine of parity; yet the right hon. Lady later said that the Government, like the Opposition, rejected the concept of parity. She went on:
The extent to which this levelling up process has gone varies in different parts of the public services, but in general it is still true to say that those most recently retired are most favourably placed. While there is no an event pattern over the whole area and, in particular, some of the oldest and smallest pensions have already been brought close to current standards, many of those who have been retired longest are still the furthest behind.

There are several phrases there—" levelling up ", "current standards", "furthest behind"—which can be referable only to the level of pensions of those currently retiring. That is what is embodied in the doctrine of parity.

So in those two passages the Government appear, perhaps inadvertently, to be adopting the principle of parity. Yet in the very next sentence the right hon. Lady shifted her ground to an entirely different basis, that of absolute hardship:
And, of course, as they are among the most elderly, they are the least able to help themselves. Some, the oldest among them, have no National Insurance pension to reinforce their occupational pensions.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the strongest public sympathy, both inside and outside of the House, continues to be expressed for these pensioners.

Note, again, the language, the word "assistance". She talks, immediately after, of providing the maximum assis-

tance to those longest retired. The word "assistance" is the language of the Welfare State, which I thought was wholly out of place when considering occupational pensions.

However, to do the right hon. Lady justice, she rapidly slid away from "assistance" to rather firmer ground, the cost of living. She said that the increase of 18 per cent. provided in the Bill
'… should also be compared … with the increase of 12·3 per cent. in the Index of Retail Prices since the 1965 Act came into operation on 1st January 1966 … these people will not merely have the purchasing power of their pensions restored to the point it had reached immediately after the passage of the last Act; they will enjoy a further significant improvement in real terms in the value of their pensions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 1124–1125.]

Therefore, she ran the whole gamut from my first to my fifth point—the five bases of increasing pensions in a column and a quarter.

The right hon. Lady has backed every single horse in the stable: "this brings them closer to current standards"—that is the argument based on parity; "our sympathy requires that those least able to help themselves should have the maxi mum assistance "—the language of hard ship and the Welfare State; "increases should be compared with the cost of living"—the concept of relative hard ship; and, finally, "they should bring real increases in the cost of living"—the last argument. She has displayed more muddled thinking in just over a column of HANSARD than most Ministers reserve for a whole Second Reading speech—

Mrs. Hart: Would it not be kinder to put it another way, that I have managed to satisfy a number of essential criteria simultaneously?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Lady is entitled to regard it in that way, but we should do better than this. We should establish, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said repeatedly in Committee and today, some firm basis of principle upon which these pensions are to be increased. I should like to suggest how, and the Amendment is the peg on which I hang this.
We should adhere, not solely but primarily, to the firm principle of the cost of living. We should aim to protect


pensions against erosion of their purchasing power by inflation. That is to say, the principle is that a public service pension, once granted, and in normal circumstances, should be assured of a reasonable protection against increases in the cost of living.
Where, because of past default, perhaps by Governments of both parties, they have not been so protected, one needs in addition steps to bring up to the appropriate level those pensions which have fallen sadly behind. That is the purpose of my party's 1956 proposal. But once those pensions have been brought up to the appropriate level, the purchasing power of that level should be maintained.
9.15 p.m.
We have already argued that we believe it is wrong to provide for automatic increases. Certainly it would be impracticable to provide for increases at shorter intervals than biennially. It follows, therefore, that from time to time there is bound to be a lag of two years or perhaps a little over two years.
If the maintenance of the purchasing power of pensions is the main guiding principle, I believe that we are, for the first time, on firm ground. I believe that the great majority of public service pensioners would recognise this as perhaps the fairest basis on which to proceed. I believe that they have continually found this curious escalator which has been written into successive Bills difficult to understand. Equally, I believe that they recognise that the demand for parity is a bit unreasonable, though I know that some of the organisations continue to adhere to that.
As evidence for the view that many pensioners accept that protection from inflation is what they look for, I should like to quote from a letter from one of my constituents in November when the matter was being discussed:
My own personal view is that the great majority of public service pensioners would be content if they knew that their original pensions were reasonably insulated against rising living costs
I believe that that is the main peg on which it would be appropriate for us to hang subsequent legislation.
I should like to relate this to what we have tabled in the Amendment. Like all

story-tellers, I should like to begin in medias res. I ask the House to look at the middle of the Amendment,
After 1st April 1956 but not later than 1st April 1964, 14 per cent.
Every one of those pensions, if the pensioner had attained the age of 60, was increased on 1st January, 1966, by the 1965 Pensions (Increase) Act. Since 1st January, 1966, these pensions have suffered a cost of living increase of 12·3 per cent. to the end of December last, and we estimate about 14 per cent. by 1st April, 1969. Therefore, the increase which we specify in the Amendment of 14 per cent. would restore the purchasing power of those pensions to what it was immediately after the last increase.
Moving down the Amendment,
After 1st April 1964 but not later than 1st April, 1965, 20 per cent.
These were the pensions which were not increased by the 1965 Act. Therefore, they require a larger increase because they have suffered a substantially greater erosion of inflation than the pensions of those who retired earlier and got the 1965 increase. The cost of living increase since April, 1964, is 22 per cent. The increase since April 1965, is about 17 per cent. Therefore, we have chosen the midway point and increased these pensions by 20 per cent.
Similarly, going down the Schedule,
After 1st April 1965 but not later than 1st April 1966, 15 per cent.
That is halfway between the maximum of about 17 per cent. and the minimum increase in cost of living of about 12 per cent. So it goes on down to the last line. For those who retired between April, 1967, and April, 1968, we suggest 5 per cent., because since April, 1967, the cost of living has risen by 8 per cent. and since April, 1968, it has risen by 4 per cent. Five per cent. is perhaps on the low side; nevertheless it is substantial justice. Under this Schedule only those pensions paid since April, 1968, would not qualify for any increase at all.
The right hon. Lady will appreciate that we are left with the top two lines of the Schedule, and I must explain them. We would prefer our own 1956 proposal, but the Money Resolution has been so drawn that that is out of order and, therefore, could not be selected for debate in Committee, and we did not


table it again. Therefore, we go for the second best and say that the old pensions, the pensions which did not have any, or any substantial, increase for a number of years, and which suffered substantial erosion, should now have a once-and-for-all 25 per cent. increase. Then there are those from July, 1955, to July, 1956, where we propose 18 per cent., which the right hon. Lady has written into the Bill, and that is, therefore, unchanged. These two lines would represent a further substantial step towards our 1956 proposal, plus giving those pensioners the cost of living increase to which they would be entitled under the Bill.
I do not shrink from the logic which that pattern imposes. First, older pensioners who have had one or more increases already would in some cases inevitably get a lower percentage increase than would some more recent pensioners who have not had an increase but who nevertheless have been very severely affected by inflation. Secondly, a number of older pensioners would, in a fair number of cases, get a lower absolute increase than would pensioners who retired from the same grade at a later stage. There would be a bigger increase for those with bigger pensions, the more recent pensions; but surely this is exactly was is inevitably involved when one makes the cost of living increase as the main consideration in granting pension increases. It seems that this would be inherent in any scheme which had as its aim not to achieve parity or to relieve hardship, but to compensate for cost of living increases.
I have throughout said that the cost of living should be the main criterion, but there is one other, the fifth point, that if resources are available increases should be higher than the cost of living to allow pensioners, if it is possible, to share in the rising national prosperity. That, clearly, is a factor which any Government must have in mind, but provided that all pensioners are being protected against the erosion of the value of their pensions by inflation—and I emphasise that proviso—it seems fair and logical that increases in real value should apply to all pensioners proportionately to the value of their pensions, and should not be confined to the older, or the poorer, or even the lower pensioner.
Public service pensions should not be regarded as an arm of the Welfare State. Other machinery exists for that. These are occupational pensions, and, therefore, in this context should have no re-distributive element in them at all. They should have no element of redistribution, no element of welfare, and certainly no element of assistance.
Many private occupational schemes are able to pay pensioners substantial increases year after year because they are funded and, with wise investment, actuarial surpluses are thrown up in which the existing pensioners can share. It seems to me that we should aim to move in the same direction for public service pensioners, not necessarily to provide funds for separate investment, but to provide a notional funding, with realistic rates of interest, which will enable similar surpluses to be thrown up. I stress "realistic rates of interest". We have at present the teachers' superannuation scheme, on which I believe the Actuary has again reported a substantial deficit because of the wholly nominal rate of interest attached to the scheme.

The Amendment and the principles embodied in it could perfectly well be adopted, especially if public service pensions became contributory, for then they would be bound to shed any element of welfare and redistribution. Increases could properly be based on the cost of living, with real increases if national resources allowed.

I recognise that, however desirable these objectives may be, this case cannot be achieved in the scope of this limited Bill—this self-confessed holding operation, as described by the right hon. Lady in the Second Reading debate. I explained at the outset that our purpose was to give these principles an airing so that we could discuss them rationally on the Floor of the House to see where we should go. I look forward to hearing the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary and shall listen with great interest to what he has to say.

Mr. Houghton: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) on the splendid work that he has done on the Bill. I occupied his position for many years on pensions increase Bills, and I should be satisfied to have equalled his performance in Committee and on the


Floor of the House. He has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and although I have not always agreed with him, I sympathise with much of what he has said.
I shall shortly refer to the sort of mess that we have got into and how difficult it will be to get out of it, but the first thing I wish to do is to dissent from the hon. Member in his opinion that the cost of living would be the most satisfactory criterion for the assessment of the percentage increases to be given. I have never thought that the cost of living was a satisfactory index for increasing either occupational or State pensions. I was always at variance with people who thought that there should be a special cost of living index for old people and that their pensions should be adjusted by reference to it.
When the economy is expanding and standards are rising, something more is justified than mere compensation for rising living costs. This factor has arisen in connection with adjustments of pay, as well as pensions in the public sector. Time and again we have found that the cost of living was lower than the rise in real standards of living. I do not agree that the cost of living is the sole criterion. A number of criteria must be adopted. My right hon. Friend backed about half a dozen horses. That has to be done. They all run around and neigh, and we have to have regard to them all.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman must know that if he puts his money on the whole field he will never make a profit; the bookies will always win.

Mr. Houghton: Horses are always difficult things to quote in any context. Nevertheless, these various criteria have to be weighted. Furthermore, the overriding cost cannot be set aside entirely, especially when there is to be a firm limitation on the rise in public expenditure and the curb has to fall over a wide field and probably come down on some very deserving elements in the community.
One thing about which I am worried in this connection was not referred to by the hon. Member but it is important and rather serious. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip is here. In Committee he seemed to be speaking

under his more official title of Lord Commissioner of the Treasury. I can tell him that I would say ruder things to a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury than I would ever say to the Deputy Chief Whip. I have been saying rude things to Lords Commissioners of the Treasury all my life, and certainly I would not stop merely because my hon. Friend, for the time being, has assumed the mantle of Deputy Chief Whip.
9.30 p.m.
Throughout his speech on behalf of the Government in Standing Committee, he referred constantly to the National Insurance pension as being a factor to be taken into account in looking at the overall benefit which retired public servants were getting. In one case that he quoted, he spoke of the increase in the Bill which would bring a pensioner's money to £348, and he continued:
… that is to say, 10 per cent.—against a rise in the cost of living of 23 per cent. On the other hand, if one takes into account not only the public service pension but also the National Insurance retirement pension, with the married rate of National Insurance retirement pension the postman who retires at this date will be receiving £729 per annum.
Then he went on to say, as the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has said:
… the National Insurance pension is an entitlement whereas the occupational pension is not. Neither a right nor a promise is written into the schemes, either in the public or private sector, and since the purpose of succeeding public service pensions increase Bills, under successive Governments, has been basically to relieve hardship, and since that hardship is relieved at the general expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer … it would be unfair and unreasonable not to consider the total level of income of the public service pensioner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 11th February, 1969; c. 97–99.]
Shades of the means test! We must bear in mind, too, that we had a means test in connection with pensions increases for public service pensioners which was deeply resented and which eventually we abolished. There was also a ceiling on the total pension that an officer may receive—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is not a Second Reading or even a Third Reading debate. He must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Houghton: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to relate my remarks to the escalator which we find in the Amendment. I think that the percentages in the Schedule have been written down to take account of the National Insurance pension. The Amendment ignores the National Insurance retirement pension and includes percentages which it is proposed to relate to the facts of Civil Service superannuation. That is how I understand it, and that is where the difference lies, I think.
If I am right about that, it is a mistake. If there is to be a discount because a large number of public service pensioners are receiving the National Insurance retirement pension, what about an addition when they do not? That is the logic of it. In addition, the older pensioners to be dealt with under the Amendment would get more, together with a great many of the very old ones who are not receiving the National Insurance retirement pension. Moreover, among those men who have retired recently or been compelled to go before they reached the age of 65, there are many who are not receiving the National Insurance pension. It is a great mistake to get the occupational pension mixed up with the national retirement pension, at any rate at this stage. Very shortly something will have to be done to bring them together in some harmony. All occupational schemes and the State scheme must be brought into some relationship. But that is not a matter which arises in the Bill.
The escalator does arise in the Bill, and the Amendment proposes to improve the escalator in some material respects. I remind hon. Members that those who entered the Civil Service and other public services after July, 1948, have a deduction from their Civil Service pension to take account of the payment of the National Insurance pension.
The hon. Member said that he does not shrink from the logic of the Amendment. I think that I would shrink from it. The escalator is constructed on previous escalators, and there is often a great advantage in sticking to what has been started. When I was in the Government I had to consider a new escalator. There are reasons for variants at particular points. There were stages at which substantial salary and pay in-

creases were given, arising from Royal Commissions or from pay research unit exercises, and one could perhaps relate the higher level of remuneration at which some people were pensioned with the remuneration of those pensioned in the year before. But this is a dangerous exercise, because it creates a greater feeling of anomaly than is created by following the rhythm of the escalator which we find in the Bill for the third or fourth time. People understand it better and accept it.
Perhaps the only justification for some action out of line would be for the pensioners who retired early, but one would probably have to carry the escalator further back still to look at dates earlier than 1955 if one were to do the job properly.
Let us appreciate that there is nothing scientific about this; it is rough justice to the extent that there is justice in it—and indeed there is a considerable element of justice in it. I do not, therefore, feel that I could support the Amendment, although it has a good deal of logical argument and reasoning behind it.
We cannot, however, part with the Amendment feeling entirely satisfied that the Government and the House have done what should be done in present circumstances, I do not feel particularly joyous about what is being done, because I do not think it is enough and because the whole process is becoming horribly mixed up with such other considerations as the National Insurance pension, which cannot be relevant to what we are doing as employers in adjusting occupational pensions. Unless that is being done generally and there is some scheme whereby a harmony between occupational pensions and the National Insurance pension is generally understood, it is a great mistake for the Government to be doing it in special relationship to public service pensioners. Nevertheless, on the escalator in the Schedule, notwithstanding the additional benefits which the Amendment would bring, the public service will feel comforted that this is being done now and is following the lines of the previous increases which were intelligible and gave a sense of fair dealing as between one group of retirement pensioners and another. Therefore, if it comes to the


point, I will vote against the Amendment and support the Clause.

Mr. Oram: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I begin with a compliment to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)—I hope that he will not feel overwhelmed—on the clarity with which he pointed to a certain logic in the Amendment. I recognised that the first two lines of the proposed new escalator were an attempt by the hon. Gentleman to do what he had been unable to do, because of the nature of the Money Resolution, in respect of what is called 1956 parity. But it was not so easy to recognise the purpose or theme of the rather strange-looking series of numbers which followed the first two lines. However, the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and has linked his theme to the cost of living. He wishes to take that as the main, and perhaps the sole, criterion.
Much of the debate on the previous Amendment was on the general proposition about the need to protect pensioners from inflation. It will be recognised that, in the undertaking which I gave and which has been underlined by my right hon. Friend, the Government have gone further in that respect than any previous Government. We can therefore discuss this Amendment in the context of, so to speak, catching up with history. This is apparently what the hon. Gentleman wishes to do. It is a sort of back-dated compensation for cost of living changes in earlier years. Now that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends do not have the responsibility for finding the money, he has stated a case for doing something which they failed to do when they were in office.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that in these matters the cost of living is not the only criterion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford admitted as much. All sorts of other factors come into our consideration of the effect of the Bill and earlier Bills.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, in his opening remarks, quickly disclaimed any intention of being serious about the Amendment. He said that he did not expect it to be written

into the Bill. It was merely a peg on which to hang an analysis of Part IV of Schedule 1. At one point it seemed as though it was a peg on which he wanted to hang an analysis of my right hon. Friend's speech on Second Reading.
9.45 p.m.
Quite apart from the case the hon. Member deployed this evening, we have to face what the Amendment would do. The hon. Gentleman pointed to one major weakness, or what I regard as a major weakness although he was not clear whether he so regarded it or not. That is the effect of proposing to apply a higher percentage increase, 20 per cent., to pensions of 1st April, 1964, to 1st April, 1965, than are proposed for the older pensions between July, 1955, and July, 1956, where the figure is 18 per cent. This kind of arrangement, as he recognised, would in general reverse the trend of previous Acts and reverse the trend intended under the Bill from giving the largest percentage increases to the oldest pensioners. My right hon. Friends and I have insisted at various stages that we regard this principle as important. Those who have been longest retired are in many cases those in greatest need, and we should seek to help them.
I assure the hon. Member that there are a great many other quite indefensible anomalies which would creep into the whole range of pension awards if we adopted the figures he has put forward. He knows that there are plenty of anomalies within the present situation. We had them quoted on Second Reading and in Committee. I assure him that this Amendment would increase those anomalies considerably. If there were time I could give a great number of examples. I note that he is nodding his head at one point and shaking it at another as an indication that he accepts that that would be the effect of the Amendment. He does not want to have the detail which could be put forward to illustrate the weaknesses of his Amendment.
Since he has indicated that in relation to this Amendment there are serious anomalies which would be imported into the operation of the Bill, I think we should leave it at that. I am sure the House will wish to turn the Amendment down.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If I need to have the leave of the House I ask for it—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member does not need to have leave.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the Parliamentary Secretary for their kind words. I find this Bill a great education and I have enjoyed their contributions. I said at the beginning of the Committee stage that we had every confidence in and respect for the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that my words were justified. We are glad to have the Paymaster-General again with us. Perhaps now I had better get within the rules of order.
The Parliamentary Secretary would like to have pointed out the great many anomalies which would have arisen if the Schedule proposed in the Amendment were adopted, but I have provided sufficient prophylactic against that by saying that I moved the Amendment as a peg on which to hang the principal argument of the philosophy by which increases should be awarded. I had hoped that we would have had a discussion on the philosophy, on how future Governments would proceed. We are always striving to do better in this matter. I do not taunt the Parliamentary Secretary with past failures. He was moderate in his taunting of us. We are trying to establish a coherent philosophy and a basis of principle upon which the very disparate pension schemes which are covered by these Acts can be dealt with, a basis of principle which would have some unity behind it and on which we could rest with confidence.
I have suggested that it should be the cost of living with, where appropriate and where possible, some real increase in standards of living. The Parliamentary Secretary, by talking about those who have been retired the longest and about those in the greatest need, still seemed to see the public service pension schemes as containing what in the last resort I believe they should not contain—an element of redistribution, an element of the Welfare State. These schemes are not the vehicle for that. I very much welcomed what the right hon. Member for Sowerby said in that regard. There is other State machinery for dealing with

that. We should ensure that the public service pension scheme, as I said on Second Reading, adheres to the best commercial standards in private occupational pension schemes.
If we could secure that the whole range of schemes conformed with that sort of pattern, the difficulties which successive Governments have experienced in trying to get some order into these schemes would be overcome.
However, we have aired this matter. We have had a useful debate—indeed, a useful series of debates—on these matters. I have no doubt that our debates will be studied carefully by those outside. When the next Government, of whichever party it is composed, deal with this problem—not, I hope, another holding operation—there will be a body of constructive thought which will be a most valuable guide for the future.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me that we might debate with the first Order the four other Orders. The first Order will be moved and on that we shall debate all five Orders, heterogeneous as they are. Are there any objections?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: None from this side, Sir.

9.53 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark of the Supplementary Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st January 1969, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.


I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the fact that we are able to take the discussion on these Orders together. I doubt whether there will be a vehement debate on them, because they follow a well established pattern for dealing with double taxation.
The first Order relates to Denmark and gives effect to the Supplementary Protocol amending the comprehensive Convention which was signed in 1950. As the House will remember, this Convention was also amended following the changes in our domestic tax law in 1965 by a Protocol which was signed in the following year and which withdrew from portfolio investors the title to relief for overseas company tax on the profits from which their dividends are derived. The Supplementary Protocol now before the House completes the further modifications to the Convention arising from these tax changes in 1965.
The amendments made by this Supplementary Protocol follow in general the pattern of our other recent Conventions, so I do not think that the House will wish me to go into details other than to mention the withholding rates. This Supplementary Protocol with Denmark provides that as a general rule the tax which can be charged in the source country is limited to a maximum of 15 per cent., with a reduced rate of 5 per cent. in the case of dividends received by a company with a holding of 25 per cent. or more in the paying company. Interest and royalties will continue, as hitherto, to be exempt from tax in the source country.
Turning to the Seychelles Order, I need only say that this is yet another in the series of Orders relating to amending agreements with smaller Commonwealth countries which are intended to withdraw credit relief from portfolio shareholders. The agreement provides for this relief to be withdrawn from April, 1968. But, as in the case of some previous agreements, which in the event were not concluded until after that date, the Revenue will in practice continue to allow credit in respect of dividends paid before the new arrangement comes into force. There will be no kind of retrospective effect.
The agreement also makes suitable provision regarding a new land sales tax which we understand the Seychelles is

proposing to introduce. We get interesting glimpses of other people's fiscal acrobatics in the course of surveying these double taxation agreements.

Mr. William Baxter: Will the Financial Secretary let us know what is the exact position of someone who may have some investments in the Seychelles? What percentage would he be permitted to take out?

Mr. Lever: I am afraid this double taxation Order does not relate to such questions, but I shall be happy to give my hon. Friend any information he requires on the investment situation in the Seychelles and, indeed, in any of the other areas which will be covered by these agreements, but I am afraid these arrangements relate only to the way in which we treat dividends coming from the Seychelles and the way in which they treat dividends which we pay to Seychelles shareholders in United Kingdom companies. They do not cover the point in which my hon. Friend is interested.

Mr. Baxter: I want to find out how investors in the Seychelles are treated with regard to dividends coming out of the Seychelles.

Mr. Lever: They are treated in exactly the same manner as they treat our investors, which is the manner which I have already recited to my hon. Friend. I shall be happy to go over it again, but I think that for the convenience of the House this must be on another occasion. I will readily make that deal with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can I be expected to take exception or to agree to the Financial Secretary's statement if he is not prepared to reiterate a point that he has made and that I am not able to comprehend to the full without a proper explanation?

Mr. Speaker: This is an exceedingly difficult matter. We cannot ask Ministers to keep repeating statements they make because an hon. Member does not understand them. There will be a debate, and the hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking.

Mr. Baxter: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is


not prepared to repeat and explain what he really means, can you do it on his behalf?

Mr. Speaker: That is the last thing that Mr. Speaker would wish to do.

Mr. Lever: I hope my hon. Friend will not think that I am being discourteous. I did not know that there was a feeling among hon. Members that Ministers should repeat themselves. I thought that Ministers were often guilty of doing so and that this was resented by hon. Members.
Briefly, if it helps my hon. Friend, we deduct from the dividends that we pay out to the Seychelles 15 per cent. except that where the portfolio shareholding is 25 per cent. or more in the United Kingdom company we give relief for the underlying tax paid by the company in the Seychelles. If my hon. Friend is assisted by that, I am happy. If he is not, I shall be happy to go into it in somewhat greater detail with him at his convenience.

Mr. Baxter: Surely this is an appropriate time for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give an explanation for my consent or Parliament's consent to a particular matter which is brought before us. If the Financial Secretary does not give us a satisfactory explanation, one must naturally take exception. I am only asking my hon. Friend in the usual manner to give Parliament an explanation of the measures which he is asking us to approve.

Mr. Lever: I have done my best for my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will follow with the same eager attention the details of the other Orders.
The third of these Orders relates to a new comprehensive double taxation Convention with South Africa. This is to replace the existing Convention, with which the House is familiar, signed in 1962. The House will recall that the existing Convention has already been amended, following the changes in our domestic tax law in 1965, by a Protocol signed in 1967 which withdrew from portfolio investors entitlement to relief for overseas company tax on the profits from which their dividends are derived. Even after amendment by the Protocol, however, there remain a number of further changes neces-

sary because of our new tax system, and it was thought that the most convenient course would be to make a completely new Convention.
This new Convention with South Africa follows the general pattern of our recent Conventions, with which the House will be familiar. Again, I do not think that I need go into a detailed summary of the provisions of the Convention. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who is anxious to be enlightened on the Convention, will, no doubt, have a copy before him. He will see there carefully, fully and lucidly set out the details of the new arrangement to which the Convention gives effect. I hope that this new double taxation arrangement will have the approval of the House. If there are any points which trouble my hon. Friend, I shall, if I have the leave of the House, do my best to deal with them later.
The Order relating to Spain—I hope that I may have my hon. Friend's attention, since I do not want him to miss this—deals with a matter which I can elucidate briefly. It is concerned with a limited agreement covering air transport profits, providing that air transport undertakings of one country will be exempt from tax in the other country. This is the rule followed as regards air transport profits in our comprehensive double taxation agreements. Unhappily, however, in the case of Spain we have no double taxation convention as yet, though we hope to achieve one after suitable discussions. In the meantime, I think that my hon. Friend and the House will be glad to know that we have a limited agreement covering aircraft companies operating between the two countries. In other words, the United Kingdom authorities relieve of taxation Spanish aircraft which fly in this country and the Spanish authorities do not charge tax on aircraft flying in Spain which belong to the United Kingdom. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend what he wants to know.
The last Order relates to a new comprehensive agreement with Swaziland, replacing the arrangement made with that country in 1949. It takes account of recent tax changes here and in Swaziland. In 1968, Swaziland introduced a withholding tax on dividends and interest paid to non-residents, but under the terms of the 1949 arrangement the new


tax could not be levied or dividends flowing to the United Kingdom. The new agreement allows Swaziland to impose its withholding tax on United Kingdom residents' dividends up to a maximum rate of 15 per cent. Similarly, we shall be able to take 15 per cent. tax on dividends going to Swaziland. In general, the agreement, like the new Convention with South Africa, follows the general pattern of our recent double taxation agreements and, in accordance with our general policy, it withdraws from portfolio shareholders entitlement to credit for the underlying tax on the profits out of which their dividends are paid. The agreement is expressed to come into effect for 1968–69, but there is provision to ensure that, in general, the relief available under the old arrangement is not withdrawn retrospectively.
I hope that all these agreements will seem suitable to the House and will receive the approval of those hon. Members who have studied them. Each one is substantial, with complex and detailed technical provisions. I do not think that it would assist the House to add to the undoubtedly lengthy studies which hon. Members will have given to the documents. If there are any questions arising from those studies on which hon. Members would enjoy an answer, I shall be happy to provide it.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I cannot help feeling that the House would be absolutely appalled if on every single one of the 70 or 80 Conventions which have to be debated the Financial Secretary yielded to the blandishments of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) and explained all their details here. Certainly I should be appalled, and I am delighted that the Financial Secretary has resisted that temptation.
I should like to say something about the object of the agreements by way of comment rather than asking the hon. Gentleman any detailed questions. He said at the beginning that they followed closely the pattern of many we have already considered. Looking at the Danish agreement, I can confirm that. As he said, it is a second bite at the cherry. The 1966 Protocol withdrew relief for underlying tax on portfolio investments. Now we are dealing with the

dividends which have hitherto fallen to be dealt with under Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1966. In passing, I am interested to note that the Government have tabled Regulations extending the operation of that Section for yet a further year. Under the Section, there has been a 5 per cent. withholding tax in respect of dividends paid from a portfolio investment and a nil withholding tax on direct investment, and the direct investment has had a 50 per cent. shareholding test. Under the new Protocol, withholding tax is 15 per cent. for portfolio investment and 5 per cent. for direct investment, with a 25 per cent. test. This represents a considerable change of the pattern of taxation of dividends flowing between the two countries.
My next comment is relevant to one or two of the other agreements. I very much welcome the provision in Article 12(4) relating to the coming into operation of the Section. Article 12(2) contains what we have regrettably come to recognise as a pattern of retrospection, although there is a saving clause that nobody is to be worse off as a result of the retrospection. When we come to paragraph (4) we find that it is to apply only in relation to dividends
payable on or after the date of entry into force of this Supplementary Protocol.
Since the Supplementary Protocol is concerned primarily with dividends, this takes a great deal of the sting out of the criticism of the otherwise retrospective pattern.
I should like to think that possibly that paragraph owes something to the repeated criticisms directed at the Government for their insistence always on backdating these double tax agreements. I should like to think that possibly we have had some effect. If so, I very much appreciate that notice has at last been taken of those criticisms. If I am assuming too much, and this has been achieved without pressure from the House, I still welcome it.
I draw the attention of the House to the splendid undiplomatic language by which the Order would have to cease to be of effect. In Article 11 there appears the new Article XXII, which says:
The present Convention shall remain in force until denounced by one of the High Contracting Parties.


This is a new word for me in double tax conventions. I should very much like to be a fly on the wall when this Convention is denounced, and would only wish that it was the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), who was doing the denouncing. That would no doubt be a sound worth hearing.
I have only one point to make on the Seychelles agreement, and it is one that I have made before when we have debated these matters, both with the present Financial Secretary and with his predecessors. It relates to the situation in an overseas territory where the whole of the company tax is deducted and retained when the dividend is paid to the shareholder. The result is that the shareholder gets his dividend from a Seychelles company net of tax, but because the tax is the same as was paid by the company, there is no double tax relief in the case of portfolio investment.
This seems to be unfair. I have drawn attention to it repeatedly. Indeed, as long ago as 1966 the then Financial Secretary undertook that when these double taxation conventions were being negotiated regard would be had to this point. We have had now a number of them, and in no single one has any regard been had at all to the absence of any relief for withholding tax in a case where withholding tax represents tax which was originally charged on a company's profits. This is not a question of underlying tax. Some part of that should be regarded as withholding tax and as qualifying for relief. Under this agreement and a number of others this has not happened. We are getting a little impatient about this.
One would hope the Government would encourage these agreements. They are principally with smaller territories of the Commonwealth where we would want to encourage investment, and, indeed, there is a conference going on at the moment in Amsterdam where this country—not the Government—is represented by a distinguished industrialist, Sir Duncan Oppenheimer, under the aspices of the United Nations, and it is aimed at increasing investment in under-developed countries. Here is another example, as there has been in convention after convention, of specific denial of any double

taxation relief at all to portfolio investors and I do not think it is good enough.
I have no comment on the Swaziland Order. It appears to be entirely in common form and does not call for any special remark.
The Spanish agreement, as the Financial Secretary has said, is of very limited importance, relating only to air transport profits. The question I would address to the hon. Gentleman is, why have we not yet had a fully comprehensive agreement with Spain relating to double taxation? There is an increasing volume of investment and other movement between this country and Spain, and it is becoming increasingly inconvenient that these are having to be dealt with under unilateral provisions and not under treaty provisions. It was as long ago as 1st June, 1964, that the Treasury put out a statement which said that preliminary discussions of the question of a comprehensive double taxation agreement between Spain and the United Kingdom were held in Madrid in May, 1964, between representatives of the two countries.
It went on:
From these preliminary conversations it seems likely that it will be possible to make further useful progress. It is hoped to make arrangements to continue the discussions in London in due course".
That was in June, 1964. Here we are in 1969, and the most that the Treasury has been able to produce is this ridiculous little mus, this one agreement dealing with air transport profits. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can tell us what has been happening about the rest. Why have we not yet got a comprehensive agreement with Spain?
Finally, I turn to the agreement with South Africa. This is in the usual form, but this is one provision I am bound to describe, particularly in the political context in which we find ourselves, as truly remarkable. If there is one country in the whole world for which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and Ladies opposite reserve their fullest condemnation, even to the extent of trade boycotts of one sort and another, it is South Africa, and when one thinks of the Labour Party's pathological dislike of foreign investment of all sorts, surely to goodness one would expect to find in the South African agreement the full stringency and rigour of


the law being applied so that foreign investment in South Africa would be penalised to the maximum extent. This, I must tell hon. Members opposite, is not what happens under this agreement. It is quite different. Dividends here are now being treated rather more favourably under the new convention than they were treated under the 1962 Convention.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is the hon. Gentleman opposing that?

Mr. Jenkin: I am remarking on it as a truly remarkable phenomenon. Of course I am not opposing it; I am not complaining.

Mr. Baxter: Mr. Baxter rose—

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and make his point. I am not surprised that he finds himself rather nettled by this.
Under the 1962 Convention portfolio dividend suffered a 15 per cent. withholding tax, and dividend from direct investment only a 5 per cent. withholding tax, but a direct investment was defined as one in which an overseas shareholder had at least a 50 per cent. shareholding. Under the new Convention the percentages of withholding tax are the same, 15 per cent. for portfolio and 5 per cent. for direct, but the qualifying criterion for a direct investment has been reduced from a 50 per cent. shareholding to a 25 per cent. shareholding, so that we have the astonishing result that certain minority investors in South Africa of all countries, those who have less than 50 per cent. or more than 25 per cent., will now suffer a lower South African withholding tax than they have hitherto suffered.
They will continue to get the underlying tax relief for the company taxation provided they have more than a 10 per cent. shareholding, but as the company tax in South Africa is only 36⅔ per cent. it is conceivable that they will find that the whole of the foreign tax is eligible for relief against British tax, and that this position has actually been improved under the new Convention.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire asked me if I approved of that. Yes, I do; but are hon. Gentlemen opposite happy with that? We have now debated over 40 double tax conventions since the 1965 Finance Act, and I believe that this is the

only example where the company investor in this country investing in an overseas country is better off as the result of the Government's tax changes. It may be only a marginal improvement, but it is nevertheless an improvement, and it is happening in South Africa.
Cecil Rhodes defined his philosophy in the southern part of Africa as philanthropy plus 5 per cent. The Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite have gone one better than that: moral condemnation plus 10 per cent. I wonder what the hon. Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), who are constantly inveighing against the Government's liberal attitude to overseas investment, would say if they knew that under the South African Convention a company investor in this country was being more favourably treated than hitherto? It is lucky for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that these hon. Gentlemen are not in the House tonight, otherwise I fancy we should be here for a long time.
The Orders are in their usual form. We welcome them as yet one more stage in this massive renegotiation in which the Treasury and the Inland Revenue are engaged. We hope that the process will soon be finished and that we can call to a halt this interminable "Peyton Place" of a serial story in which the Financial Secretary and I have to engage several times a month.

Mr. Lever: With the leave of the House, I should like, out of courtesy to the hon. Member, to answer the points he has made and also to correct a slip of the tongue which I made in response to my hon. Friend's intervention.
It takes two to make a double taxation agreement, we are very ready to make one with the Spanish authorities, and one is still being negotiated. We have not yet been able to get a complete agreement, but there are many respectable precedents for signing a limited agreement until the major agreement can be obtained, and we do not despair of that.
It is true that the South African agreement improves the British investor's position on investments compared with the 1962 Treaty, but it merely brings it into line, and rather less than into line, with many other countries with which we have double taxation agreements.
Finally, perhaps I might correct my slip of the tongue. I would not like my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire to be under any misapprehension. I think that I said that a 25 per cent. holding would entitle a United Kingdom shareholder in a Seychelles company to underlying tax relief. I should have said that a 10 per cent. holding in any shares held in the Seychelles would be satisfactory.
In those circumstances, I hope that the House will now proceed to pass these Orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark of the Supplementary Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st January, 1969, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Seychelles) Order 1969, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 31st January.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Republic of South Africa of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st January, 1969, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Spain) Order 1969 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 31st January.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Swaziland) Order 1969 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 31st January.—Mr. Harold Lever.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

NATIONAL THEATRE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60A (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

NATIONAL THEATRE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to raise the limit imposed by section 1 of the National Theatre Act 1949 on the contributions which may be made under that section, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable which is attributable to raising that limit to £3,750,000.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

TELEPHONE SERVICE (PRIVATELY-OWNED EQUIPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

10.22 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Loveys: In drawing this matter to the attention of the House, I realise that in two respects it might rot at first be considered a suitable or propitious moment at which to discuss the monopoly of the Post Office with regard to the use of equipment.
I had intended to thank the Postmaster-General for coming to the House to reply to the debate. He gave me a definite assurance that he would be here, and I have had a conversation with him in the Lobby. It is treating the House—[Interruption.] I see that he is now in his place. I am glad now to take the opportunity of thanking him for coming to listen and reply to the debate.
As I was saying, it may not be considered a suitable or propitious moment at which to raise this matter, on two counts. The first is that the Post Office Bill, with the aim of transferring the G.P.O. to a public corporation, is at the present time going through its Committee stage, in the course of which the use of private apparatus is being discussed at some length. The second count is that, in reply to a Question of mine on 23rd January, the Postmaster-General indicated that he was having discussions with interested parties on the use of private equipment.
However, I felt it right to apply for this Adjournment debate because the Postmaster-General did not seem aware, when he replied to my Question, of the type of telephone to which I was referring. He referred to it as antique and substandard. In fact it is neither. It is the tradition of this House that if a Minister gets his facts wrong at Question Time, a backbencher has the opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment, which I am now doing.
I hope that this debate may be of help to the Postmaster-General concerning the difficulties being experienced by

ordinary citizens who purchase equipment freely on sale in the shops, but which the G.P.O. refuses to connect. On this point I query the apparent lack of liaison between the Postmaster-General and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in that the latter allows this equipment to be imported, though the public, able to buy it in the shops, is not able to use it on the public system. It seems the classic example of the right hand of the Government not knowing what the left hand is doing.
I do not intend to mention very much about the more sophisticated equipment involved, but I have had a letter from the Confederation of British Industry which has expressed grave concern about the matter, particularly with the desire of industry about the connecting up of PABX equipment. I have also had letters from computer firms about competition from other countries which is putting them in an adverse position, because other countries allow to be done what the companies in this country are asking for. However, time will not allow me to cover a very wide sphere, and I admit that I am not qualified to talk on this sophisticated equipment. I leave that to my more qualified hon. Friends in the Standing Committee.
I will restrict myself to the use on the public system of private telephones which are on sale but which G.P.O. engineers are instructed not to connect. I assure the House that many stores and shops sell these telephones. I recently spoke to the man in charge of the department that sells these telephones at Fortnum and Mason in Piccadilly. He told me that they have sold hundreds of these telephones. Selfridges had them in their Christmas catalogue. Chinacraft in Oxford Street and, I am sure, many other stores sell this equipment.
I must declare my personal interest in the matter. It is a very small personal interest. I had a present from my wife of a mock antique telephone of this type. I telephoned the G.P.O. and asked whether engineers could kindly come and install my telephone. The G.P.O. engineers came along. They were very polite. They admired my telephone immensely, but they said, with great regret, that the regulations did not allow them to fit it.
This telephone and others on sale are, in every respect, up to the standard of the G.P.O. It was wrong for the Postmaster-General to refer to this equipment as substandard. It is fitted with G.P.O. specification dials, the Type 4000 trigger dial, it has a G.P.O. standard type ringer, and a C.5N line capacitor, as per G.P.O. specification. I am not sure what all that means, but I am told by an ex-G.P.O. engineer that it means that the equipment is absolutely up to the standard of G.P.O. telephones.
I have used one of these telephones and I found it very satisfactory. I have certainly had better sound reproduction through one of these machines. I should add that three ex-G.P.O. engineers, telephoned me as soon as they heard about this story. They said that they were ex-G.P.O. engineers, but they had left the Post Office because they did not like working for a monopoly of that sort, and they offered to come to fit my machine. Although I did not suggest that they should come to fit it, I said that one of them could come and look at it, and this is the man who took the machine to pieces to look at it to make sure that it was completely up to the specification of the G.P.O.
If these telephones were in any way inferior I should be the first to agree that they should not be allowed to be connected to the public system, but I feel that provided they meet certain set standard requirements they should be allowed to be used, as is the case in the United States of America, in many continental countries, and in other free countries throughout the world. As I am talking about the efficiency of telephones, perhaps I might ask the right hon. Gentleman why, if he is so keen, as he should be, to have only efficient machines on the public network, he allows telephones which are 40 years old, and not working well, to be kept in use. I feel that there should be a time limit for these telephones, after which the G.P.O. should be prepared to replace them, free of charge, with more modern machines.
The only other matter that I propose to raise is that of enforcing the present regulations. Regulations which I dislike most are those which are so difficult to enforce, and these regulations cannot be

enforced without unwarrantable intrusion into a person's home. The G.P.O. has a system called Plan 4, which is a series of sockets which can be placed round a house or office so that there is nothing to prevent the telephones being unplugged and put in a cupboard when one wants to do that.
To illustrate the difficulty of enforcement I must draw attention to a personal experience. I gave the Minister notice of this so that he could make inquiries and have the opportunity of giving me an assurance on this matter. The day after my Question in the House I was phoning from my home when suddenly there were some weird noises on the phone. I said to the chap I was talking to, "It sounds as though my phone is about to pack up", but I was allowed to finish my call. I put the receiver down, then picked it up again, and my line was cut off. I went to my brother, who lives a mile away, and borrowed his phone to report my breakdown. Following that, two engineers came round to my house very quickly indeed.
I am not sure whether I mentioned that during my telephone call, when I said to the friend to whom I was speaking that it sounded as though my phone was breaking down, a voice in the distance said, "This line is jolly well going to break down soon", or words to that effect. I heard that clearly, so there can be no mistake about it.
When the engineers came to my house, I was out. I should have liked to have met them. The only person in the house was the person who was doing some dusting, and she told me that the engineers asked "Where is this so-called antique telephone that we have heard so much about?". She did not know about it, and she told them so. Before they left they said to her, "Tell Mr. Loveys that there was a loose wire in his telephone, which we have mended".
I am not making any allegations against the right hon. Gentleman, but I must ask for a definite assurance that my phone fault and my Question in the House were in no way connected. Even if I get that assurance, I consider that the method of enforcement of the regulations is bound to be undesirable and also ineffective if a Plan 4 system is installed. Regulations which cannot be enforced should not be in existence.
This Adjournment debate is aimed at expressing disapproval, in a small way, at the G.P.O. monopoly in this matter, and also to express my hope that this country will eventually follow most other free countries of the world and allow privately purchased equipment to be connected to the G.P.O. system, provided it is fully up to a specified standard of efficiency.

10.35 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) for raising this matter and for giving me this opportunity to explain Post Office policy with regard to the attachment of equipment to the G.P.O. system. At the outset I want to say a few words about the hon. Member's personal experiences. When I read in the weekend Press that the hon. Member had had certain experiences that he thought were due to the G.P.O. I was very concerned. I appreciate his courtesy in advising me before the debate of the points that he wished to raise. This has given me an opportunity of conducting a full investigation into the events in question. I have this evening interviewed two Post Office engineers who were connected with some of the events, although there is no question that two engineers responded to the hon. Member's appeal for assistance.
As I understand it, the circumstances were as follows: at about half-past twelve on a certain day the hon. Member telephoned the G.P.O. with the information that his telephone was experiencing some fault. An instruction was given to one of the repair men to go to the hon. Member's address to do the repairs, along with a number of other repair jobs that were on his card—I have the card here—for that day. I believe that the engineer arrived at the house at about two o'clock. On the way he inquired the direction from another engineer who was conducting repairs in the road nearby. The engineer who was deputed to investigate the reported fault found only loose connections in the house and put these right, and there was no question of his conducting an inquiry into the whereabouts of the reproduction antique telephone.

Mr. Loveys: The Minister will be aware that I am in a difficulty, because

I was not in the house at the time, but I can assure him that the information I have—which is from the lady who was dusting—is that two chaps came in and were quite definitely inquiring for this antique telephone of which they had heard so much. She denied knowledge of it, because she did not know anything about it. It was in the cupboard. I cannot imagine that she could have made up this story. I do not want to make a fuss about this; I merely want the Minister's assurance that this had nothing to do with my Question.

Mr. Stonehouse: A serious complaint has been made in the public Press against the G.P.O. engineers and the way in which we conduct our business, and I wanted to assure myself that there was absolutely no substance in the point put forward. There is none. The engineer—and there was only one—who went to the house was responding to an ordinary complaint about a fault on the line which had been reported to him at half-past twelve.

Mr. Keith Stainton: This ignores the fact that my hon. Friend heard certain words in the background when he was telephoning. It also puts in great doubt the validity of what the housekeeper had to say.

Mr. Stonehouse: If the hon. Member will contain himself I shall do my best to explain the story as it has been explained to me. The engineer in question in the house asked where the antique telephone was. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Stainton: Why?

Mr. Stonehouse: Because he had read about it in the Press. There had been a great deal of publicity about this telephone. But in his mind this had absolutely no connection with the job in question, which was to repair the fault which had been reported. That small fault was corrected and the telephone was back in order by 3 p.m.
There was no question of any conversation on the hon. Gentleman's line involving the G.P.O. I cannot for the life of me understand what it was that was overheard during the call to which reference has been made. I can only


imagine that it was a crossed line. Certainly my investigations indicate that the G.P.O. was in no way responsible, that no engineer was responsible, for any such words being used.
I should like to turn to the main substance of the debate, which concerns the attachment of equipment supplied from outside the Post Office to the system which we run. The House is well aware that we have been operating a policy of permitting connection to the system only of equipment supplied by the Post Office or, if privately owned, equipment specifically approved by the G.P.O. There is no secret about that. It is set out in the Regulations of 1968 of which the House is well aware.
The Post Office has to impose these controls because it is necessary to ensure that the telephone system as a whole works successfully and efficiently. In some quarters comparison has been made with the electricity supply industry, suggesting that as the electricity authority allow electrical equipment to be attached without themselves supplying it, the telephone system could adopt the same practice. This ignores the basic point that the electricity business is a supplying business. The telephone business is a communications business, and it is vitally important that the equipment which is attached to the system is wholly as efficient as, and consistent with, the system itself. It is therefore important that the Post Office should maintain very strict control over the type of equipment which is attached to the system.
If inadequate equipment were attached, it would be embarrassing not only to the subscriber whose equipment it was, but also to callers on that line, and it would upset the delicate working of the transmission lines and the system as a whole. There is a risk of this inadequate equipment emitting sounds which may harm the system elsewhere, and there is also a risk of putting on the line voltages which might injure Post Office staff or, indeed, do some irretrievable harm to the system.
This is perhaps an occasion on which I can refer to the importance of maintaining the standard of the equipment which is attached. The hon. Member

has acquired a reproduction antique telephone. It is not very easy to design a telephone which will work on the Post Office system. It is easy to design a telephone which will work on a private internal system, and many of the telephones to which the hon. Member refers are designed for that purpose. We have certainly no objection—indeed, we have no standing in the matter—if firms or individuals acquire such telephones as they like for installation on their own systems. But we have an interest, indeed we have a duty, to ensure that the telephones which are attached to the public system are up to standard. They must be up to standard and they must be fully consistent with the system.

Mr. Loveys: I agree that that is the duty the right hon. Gentleman has to insist on, but does he not agree that there are many telephones which are completely up to the standard of G.P.O. specifications?

Mr. Stonehouse: I have looked into the question of reproduction antique telephones. No reproduction antique telephone has been submitted to us for examination. One which came into the possession of the G.P.O. some time ago was found to be remarkably below standard and it would have been most unwise for it to be attached to the system.
For a phone to work satisfactorily it must be capable of sending the right type of dialling and other signals to work the automatic exchanges over a wide range of types of line. When the call is established, it has to send speech signals of such volume and frequency characteristics that when matched to the characteristics of the public telephone network, they produce satisfactory speech in the distant phone whether it be next door or hundreds of miles away at the end of a highly complex transmission system.
I am sorry to import so much technicality but it is important that the House should understand how complex a problem it is to ensure that a public system works. Some countries use low powered telephones and highly amplified transmission systems. Some, and we are one of these, find it efficient and economic to use a higher powered telephone and less amplication in other parts of the network. A phone designed for use in another country may not be appropriate for use


here. Reproduction antique phones that are being sold would not be suitable for attachment to the system because so many are below standard. Expensive reproduction antique phones which retailers are selling may be useful for internal systems, but if it is brought to our notice that these phones are being attached to the system, we shall have to make representations to the individuals concerned because it certainly would be against the Regulations if they were so attached.
When it is brought to our attention that individual retailers have been telling their customers that these phones would be suitable for connection to the public system, we have advised the retailer of the true position and asked him to ensure that the customers are also aware of it. We hope very much that those customers who have acquired these phones will resist the temptation to have them attached to the system because, although they may appear to be working satisfactorily and it is possible that the telephone can work satisfactorily on some calls, it may be embarrassing to the rest of the system to have such a sub-standard phone attached to it.
The House should be made aware that the Post Office does allow a lot of other equipment to be attached to the system. We have a whole range—I think as many as 400 separate pieces of equipment—which can be attached. These range from PABX equipment to recording devices. We have a great and useful contact with many suppliers of this type of equipment. It would be quite wrong for the Post Office to prevent this type of equipment to be attached, but if that equipment goes wrong, particularly recording equipment, it is usually clear that this is an isolated bit of equipment and does not affect the system as such. If a telephone instrument goes wrong or is not working efficiently it could for a very long time be an embarrassment to the system as a whole and it certainly would be something which would be a brake on the efficient running of the system.
I am sorry to have to give a disappointing reply to the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that it will not be possible for us to allow his reproduction antique

phone to be attached to the system, and a large number of other customers for such phones will be disappointed, because these phones do not come up to the very stringent requirements that we lay down for the attachment of equipment to the system.

Mr. Hector Monro: If the Postmaster-General has not had the telephone belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) examined by his engineers, how does he know that it is not up to standard?

Mr. Storehouse: If the owner of any of these reproduction phones wishes to have them examined, we will examine them; but we would be most reluctant to attach them to the system until we were fully satisfied that they were up to standard. My advice is that they are not up to the standard that would be required.

Mr. Loveys: Just to satisfy us all, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to have these telephones examined. We should know for certain. This ex-G.P.O. fellow came along and took my telephone to pieces. He saw these stamps on it. He said that it was entirely and absolutely up to G.P.O. standard. I have had this information from an ex-G.P.O. engineer. I am sure that the information would not be any different from a serving G.P.O. engineer. If after examination the right hon. Gentleman says that these phones are not up to standard, we will all accept it and will agree that they should not be used. The argument is that, if they are up to standard, they should be allowed to be sold in the shops. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that, unless they are properly examined, it is unfair for the Minister to say that they are not up to standard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a long intervention.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.